Modified Texas Method

[NZninja101]

Hey everybody. I posted this in the teen section a little while back. Link below, same routine as listed here, but also a template of the original program, (or one of its versions - the volume is all pretty similar), intermediate lifters, and a rationale of how this program would work so well for its target.


http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1444536733



Basically, TM is a brilliant program on a theoretical level. Early intermediates can progress weekly on their lifts. Theoretically the amount of work they need to grow is so high that they can't PR the next session, (unless they're running a bro split, possibly). So TM has the volume day, the recovery day, and the testing day over one week. But in practice numerous people report that the program doesn't have quite enough volume. A simple comparison to Starting Strength, (which includes Pullups), shows this.

TEXAS METHOD VERSUS STARTING STRENGTH - SETS DONE OVER 1 WEEK (averages)


Squats: 9 & 9
Bench Press: 4.5 & 4.5
OHP: 4.5 & 4.5
Deadlift: 1 & 1.5
Upper Back Work: 8 & 9

As well as volume on the main exercises, I also feel that an early intermediate is adapted enough to weight training for isolation exercises for the arms, shoulders, abs, hams, to begin to matter.

NZninja's modified Texas Method:


Monday:


Squats 5X5
SLDL 3X8
Leg Curl 3X8
Leg Raise or Ab Rollout 3X8


Tuesday:


Bench Press 5X5
Row 4X6
High Incline DB Press 5X8
Chin/Pullup 4X8
Reverse Fly superset w Tricep Overhead Extension 3X10
Incline Curl superset w Lateral Raises 3X10



Thursday:


Squat 3X5 @ 80%
Bench 3X5 @ 80%
Row 4X6
Chin/Pullup 4X8
Reverse Fly 3X10
Incline Curl superset w Lateral Raises 3X10


Saturday:


Squat 1X5 PR, 10-15% weight drop, 3 more sets of 5
Bench 1X5 PR, 10-15% weight drop, 3 more sets of 5
Deadlift 1X5 PR, 15% weight drop, 2 more sets of 5

Volume assessment.

NZNINJA TEXAS METHOD VERSUS STARTING STRENGTH - SETS DONE OVER 1 WEEK


Squatting: 12 to 9
Deadlifting: 6 to 1.5
Chest Work: 12, (17 including high incline press), to 4.5
Shoulders: 12, (17 including high incline press), to 4.5
Arm isolation: 9 to 0
Upper Back: 16 to 9

This whole thing is just an extension of the idea that the more advanced you get, the more work you need to do, made to fit as in building upon the workloads done on a novice program such as Starting Strength.

[VanillaBearB]

This looks like it could work well. I was watching a seminar from Greg Nuckols yesterday about work capacity and he presented the simplest way of looking at volume i've ever seen.

Are you progressing? If yes, change nothing.

If no:

Are you feeling beaten up all the time? Yes = you need to decrease your training volume because your work capacity is the limiting factor. No = increase training volume.

So essentially, you want to get away with the least amount of volume you can whilst still progressing. So as long as people are aware of that before they try a more high volume approach such as your setup, I don't see what can go wrong.

[grouchyjarhead]

When modifying the TM for more volume, there's a delicate balance you have to reach to make sure you're not affecting volume or intensity days. This unfortunately doesn't achieve that.

One huge issue I see with it already - you now only have one day of rest between Intensity Day and your squat Volume Day, which is typically the most difficult day of the week. Anyone who's run the TM for a good length of time will tell you one day between the two simply isn't enough. Plus you're adding extra squat volume on Intensity Day.

Not to mention the lack of overhead pressing, one of the best shoulder developers out there.

If you want to add volume to the TM, you need to pick up the TM book.by Justin Lascek for how to do it correctly. If you start cutting into your main lifts on either volume or intensity, you're marginalizing the entire effect of the program as a whole.

[NZninja101]

This looks like it could work well. I was watching a seminar from Greg Nuckols yesterday about work capacity and he presented the simplest way of looking at volume i've ever seen.

Are you progressing? If yes, change nothing.

If no:

Are you feeling beaten up all the time? Yes = you need to decrease your training volume because your work capacity is the limiting factor. No = increase training volume.

So essentially, you want to get away with the least amount of volume you can whilst still progressing. So as long as people are aware of that before they try a more high volume approach such as your setup, I don't see what can go wrong.

That's absolutely the kind of thinking I've incorporated into this. Add more when it needs to be added. Just getting a bit more into how much work one should do, I've actually quantified the, 'best amount of volume', for myself, by basically doing enough work so that after 6 whole weeks of training, I've reached this point of a little strength drop due to the fatigue, and then deload, but that's just my interpretation. Doing this so it takes 5 weeks, or 8, I couldn't say are wrong either.

When modifying the TM for more volume, there's a delicate balance you have to reach to make sure you're not affecting volume or intensity days. This unfortunately doesn't achieve that.

I would disagree on that. I'm just going to expand on this below.

One huge issue I see with it already - you now only have one day of rest between Intensity Day and your squat Volume Day, which is typically the most difficult day of the week. Anyone who's run the TM for a good length of time will tell you one day between the two simply isn't enough. Plus you're adding extra squat volume on Intensity Day.

I've got a suspicion on what the underlying issue is here. There are a lot of people in the weight lifting world who recommend that lifters stay on programs for inappropriately long amounts of time. Guys who spend almost a year on SS despite not being able to linearly progress session to session consistently for a third of that time. This problem I've seen a lot on TM as well. Intermediates who are really not feasibly going to GET weekly 5lb jumps on their lifts who don't switch programs because they're been given this mentality that when you're done with TM, you're advanced, when that's totally unfounded.


A true early intermediate, exactly who this TM is aimed for, can make 5lb a week jumps on 5 rep sets. These are by and large not the people who have the capabilities to beat themselves up from one top set of 5 on squats and deadlifts and 5 collective sets after with 15% less weight, to the point where a 5X5 with 90% becomes impossible two days later. This is part of the problem with the original Texas Method. The Intensity day is used as a time to test, without building any future strength, when both should be done. A testing day with no volume is fine after a more spread out training cycle. After all, it would be only 1 session compared to say 12+ training sessions which could be described as volume with 1-2 of the, 'Recovery day'. Compare that to TM... 2 out of 3 training sessions a week not getting in good volume isn't smart, it's wasteful.


This program would literally be an 8-12 week thing before the lifter who stalled on SS has upped their squat 50lb, their bench 35 and their deadlift 60.

Not to mention the lack of overhead pressing, one of the best shoulder developers out there.

I don't think you're missing out on the stimulation of the front delt by sidestepping the overhead press for the high incline dumbbell press. As for the stimulation of the other heads of the shoulder, OHP tends to be a bit pathetic compared to the stimulation found on side and rear delt isolation. We might have the same kind of idea on the place of the OHP, or the high incline press, in TM: to basically build up a group of muscles which then assists on the bench press, rather than for the sake of getting good at the exercise, (which obviously still happens), but there are more efficient paths. By the way obviously my edit isn't designed for people who want to OHP for the sake of OHP. You already know that but I just wanted to get that out there.

If you want to add volume to the TM, you need to pick up the TM book.by Justin Lascek for how to do it correctly. If you start cutting into your main lifts on either volume or intensity, you're marginalizing the entire effect of the program as a whole.

I'd definitely disagree with this also. A program made for lifters too advanced for a beginner program, which then has less volume than the beginner program, needs to be adjusted in order to reflect the kind of stimulus that truly works best.

[retiredrunner]

1 day of rest between intensity and volume yeah no

[grouchyjarhead]

I've got a suspicion on what the underlying issue is here. There are a lot of people in the weight lifting world who recommend that lifters stay on programs for inappropriately long amounts of time. Guys who spend almost a year on SS despite not being able to linearly progress session to session consistently for a third of that time.

If anything I would disagree entirely with this. People are far too quick to jump from linear progression programs to splits or modifying other programs far before they are ready.

Most lifters can get several good months out of a program like Starting Strength before they need to move on. And I include you in that OP. Running a bastardized version of the TM right off the bat and doing squats in the Smith less than your bench is not an intermediate or advanced lifter - it's someone who didn't put enough time in on the basics.

This problem I've seen a lot on TM as well. Intermediates who are really not feasibly going to GET weekly 5lb jumps on their lifts who don't switch programs because they're been given this mentality that when you're done with TM, you're advanced, when that's totally unfounded.

I never heard anyone recommend that. Especially when you can run the TM with slight modifications for a few years.

I don't think you're missing out on the stimulation of the front delt by sidestepping the overhead press for the high incline dumbbell press. As for the stimulation of the other heads of the shoulder, OHP tends to be a bit pathetic compared to the stimulation found on side and rear delt isolation. We might have the same kind of idea on the place of the OHP, or the high incline press, in TM: to basically build up a group of muscles which then assists on the bench press, rather than for the sake of getting good at the exercise, (which obviously still happens), but there are more efficient paths. By the way obviously my edit isn't designed for people who want to OHP for the sake of OHP. You already know that but I just wanted to get that out there.

I find that when someone just finds it hard they just try to find a way to justify to take it out. Meanwhile for optimal shoulder development and health it is pretty much a necessity. If you look at some of the old-time lifters they all had tremendous shoulder development and they got it from pressing.

I'd definitely disagree with this also. A program made for lifters too advanced for a beginner program, which then has less volume than the beginner program, needs to be adjusted in order to reflect the kind of stimulus that truly works best.

His book is designed for the person just starting the Texas Method all the way up to several years of progression. No matter what the goals. And this is a guy who was one of Rippetoe's coaches and has excellent qualifications.

This modification quite frankly is rubbish. It takes an effective program and alters what actually makes it effective for the sake of volume. Everything about the Texas Method is intensity and volume day. Start messing with those two and it shows you don't understand the program whatsoever.

[NZninja101]

If anything I would disagree entirely with this. People are far too quick to jump from linear progression programs to splits or modifying other programs far before they are ready.

These people definitely exist, but there's a couple of things with that. Jumping from SS to this isn't really the same as novices moving onto bodypart splits with 1X a week frequency and being inefficient. Assuming the problem with splits to be insufficient frequency, then that's a non issue in this program. And from the standpoint of modifying programs before they're ready, surely that just makes this program's existence a better thing for doing it for them.


Fukaround-itis can likely be bad for results... But sticking to a program you're too advanced for, will for sure.

Most lifters can get several good months out of a program like Starting Strength before they need to move on. And I include you in that OP.

If you mean that I should have done SS, I did. If you're seriously suggesting that I should jump on Starting Strength now... Then for good reason I can't take that comment seriously at all. I won't make any hard assumptions because I'm not completely sure what you meant on that and it would be rude to assume you're ignorant enough to say what it could be construed that you might have said.

Running a bastardized version of the TM right off the bat and doing squats in the Smith less than your bench is not an intermediate or advanced lifter - it's someone who didn't put enough time in on the basics.

This program doesn't contain squats in the smith machine. I'm flattered that you took the time to read through year old posts on my log, though.


An individual with a problematic and multiple time injured L5 disk, with a history of nerve damage, with no direct powerlifting aspirations, getting in the smith machine, putting their feet forward and intentionally worsening their leverages in order to stimulate your quads and glutes with less weight on your back... There's a difference between not putting enough time in the basics, and performing specific things for specific reasons, staying smart, and avoiding injury. It would pay to learn the difference.

I never heard anyone recommend that. Especially when you can run the TM with slight modifications for a few years.

Find a person who says they've been successfully running a program which administers 5lb weekly/fortnightly jumps, with slight modifications, for years, and you've found somebody who doesn't know what slight modifications are, or a liar.

I find that when someone just finds it hard they just try to find a way to justify to take it out. Meanwhile for optimal shoulder development and health it is pretty much a necessity. If you look at some of the old-time lifters they all had tremendous shoulder development and they got it from pressing.

The press is a rather over rated movement for all round shoulder work. It's no coincidence that people who value it perhaps more than they should, jump through certain mental loops in order to justify it. Of course this includes putting people who don't value the press with the same intensity as being afraid of working hard, rather than not valuing the exercise as much for material reasons. The appeal to the 'golden age' lifters and their shoulder progress is often used also, which is rather odd when from a comparitive standpoint compared to currently, their shoulders were relatively less developed. The assumption that shoulder isolation exercises didn't contribute to what they had is another assumption which seems to be simply that.

His book is designed for the person just starting the Texas Method all the way up to several years of progression. No matter what the goals. And this is a guy who was one of Rippetoe's coaches and has excellent qualifications.

This routine doesn't critique the work of this individual or the way he tampers with TM to make it work. This routine addresses the standard, starting off Texas Method. Something which starts flawed, needs work. No ifs or buts.

This modification quite frankly is rubbish. It takes an effective program and alters what actually makes it effective for the sake of volume. Everything about the Texas Method is intensity and volume day. Start messing with those two and it shows you don't understand the program whatsoever.

If you don't understand the importance of volume for driving progress, then it's you who doesn't understand the program.

[grouchyjarhead]

And from the standpoint of modifying programs before they're ready, surely that just makes this program's existence a better thing for doing it for them.

This program's existence actually demonstrates why you shouldn't modify a strength template like the Texas Method before you've actually run it in its original setup for a while. If you had then you would quickly realize why this modification will actually hinder progress that could be made otherwise. Failure to get your required volume on volume day could mean a failure on intensity day. Failing on intensity day is the worst thing ever if you're on the TM.

An individual with a problematic and multiple time injured L5 disk, with a history of nerve damage, with no direct powerlifting aspirations, getting in the smith machine, putting their feet forward and intentionally worsening their leverages in order to stimulate your quads and glutes with less weight on your back... There's a difference between not putting enough time in the basics, and performing specific things for specific reasons, staying smart, and avoiding injury. It would pay to learn the difference.

The same individual should have just had enough common sense to avoid any back-loading leg exercises and move on in life rather than doing an exercise which is probably even more harmful. I hear the CIA was making ISIS do Smith machine squats until they were threatened to be charged with war crimes. There are seriously so many better alternatives.

Find a person who says they've been successfully running a program which administers 5lb weekly/fortnightly jumps, with slight modifications, for years, and you've found somebody who doesn't know what slight modifications are, or a liar.

Myself and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one. I ran the Texas Method for over 2 years with the only difference being alternating between a 5RM and a 3RM. Helped me hit a 455 squat as an under-181 lifter and I was getting close to 4 plates for my volume day before Uncle Sam taught me to go to Iraq again. I have to check my old journals but I'm pretty sure I was using around my body weight for my first volume day. I did have some deloads but every lifter does. I know from previous discussions about the Texas Method right here on this forum that there are other posters too who have had a lot of success over a few years with the TM.

The press is a rather over rated movement for all round shoulder work. It's no coincidence that people who value it perhaps more than they should, jump through certain mental loops in order to justify it. Of course this includes putting people who don't value the press with the same intensity as being afraid of working hard, rather than not valuing the exercise as much for material reasons. The appeal to the 'golden age' lifters and their shoulder progress is often used also, which is rather odd when from a comparitive standpoint compared to currently, their shoulders were relatively less developed. The assumption that shoulder isolation exercises didn't contribute to what they had is another assumption which seems to be simply that.

Can't say I've ever seen a guy who was strict pressing his body weight over head for reps who was lacking in shoulder development. I'm pretty sure a lot of posters here on these forums would love to look like Eugene Sandow as well.

This doesn't critique the work of this individual or the way he tampers with TM to make it work. This routine addresses the standard, starting off Texas Method. Something which starts flawed, needs work. No ifs or buts.

The fact that you consider the original Texas Method flawed and this monstrosity isn't makes me feel bad for you. It must be hard finding a hat that fits a head swollen that big.

If you don't understand the importance of volume for driving progress, then it's you who doesn't understand the program.

This is where your ignorance really shows. Volume by itself isn't the most important thing if frequency and intensity are at the right levels. That is strength training programming 101. In this routine the frequency and intensity are both high so there does not need to be as much volume.

Slapping on a bunch of extra garbage for the sake of "volume" with no regard to the detriment of the actual program itself is exactly the kind of thing every beginner lifter that posts their own routine is guilty of.

[retiredrunner]

The press is a rather over rated movement for all round shoulder work.

Can't say I've ever seen a guy who was strict pressing his body weight over head for reps who was lacking in shoulder development. I'm pretty sure a lot of posters here on these forums would love to look like Eugene Sandow as well.

I'd rather strict press 225 for reps than face pull, but to each his own I suppose.

Anyway, try it out for yourself and see how it goes, OP. I personally cannot fathom adding MORE work to the 4 day bastardization TM I've been doing. I've skipped so many recovery sets it's shameful, but as long as intensity keeps progressing, IDGAF.

[grouchyjarhead]

I'd rather strict press 225 for reps than face pull, but to each his own I suppose.

Anyway, try it out for yourself and see how it goes, OP. I personally cannot fathom adding MORE work to the 4 day bastardization TM I've been doing. I've skipped so many recovery sets it's shameful, but as long as intensity keeps progressing, IDGAF.

I've skipped recovery days too. We would spar a lot on Tuesdays in my old Kyokushin dojo and if I took a ton of leg kicks I skipped a lot of work on my recovery days. As long as you're getting the work in on volume day and improving each intensity day, you're on the right track.

[KyleAaron]

If anything I would disagree entirely with this. People are far too quick to jump from linear progression programs to splits or modifying other programs far before they are ready.

The SS coach Karl Schudt had this useful insight: Rip made a mistake in calling it novice (improve session to session), intermediate (improve weekly) and advanced (improve monthly or seasonally or maybe even annually, and often don't improve at all), because nobody wants to say they're a novice, everyone wants to be advanced. It should have been called Happy, Grumpy and Desperate. This would better reflect how you feel in each stage.

Stay happy for as long as you can. Don't be in a rush to become desperate.

The press is a rather over rated movement for all round shoulder work.

You're 22 with, what, 1-2 years of serious barbell lifting behind you? You may feel differently when you're 64 with 40 years' lifting behind you. Some things we do for gainzzz, some things we do for health. The press offers some gainzzz but mostly it's health.

I hate to sound all Grumpy Old Guy, but here's something to consider. If someone who has been lifting for decades, someone who's personally helped hundreds of people get strong in their gym, if this person comes up with a programme, it probably isn't total sht. Sure, there are always tweaks to make, and if you look at Practical Programming 3e where TM is laid out you'll see lots of variations. But the guts of it is probably going to be very useful, and is probably worth trying for a bit before you decide to fck with it. Just a thought.

For example, one thing you discover on trying things is that a simple comparison of number of sets doesn't tell the whole story. For example, the weight lifted is also significant. As the weight goes up, the reps and sets drop - but it's just as hard, or harder. It's this sort of thing you learn after some years lifting and helping others lift.

[NZninja101]

This program's existence actually demonstrates why you shouldn't modify a strength template like the Texas Method before you've actually run it in its original setup for a while. If you had then you would quickly realize why this modification will actually hinder progress that could be made otherwise. Failure to get your required volume on volume day could mean a failure on intensity day. Failing on intensity day is the worst thing ever if you're on the TM.

The thing I would do here is emphasize that the idea of failing the intensity day because of the volume day being too much work, is your opinion, rather than a real outcome which has been established. Your opinion has been... noted. I guess my opinion that someone so adaptable that they can progress in 5lb jumps weekly won't fail some sets of 5 at lower weights after 1 heavy set and a few backoffs of squats and deadlifts 48hrs ago is impossible to believe. lol.

The same individual should have just had enough common sense to avoid any back-loading leg exercises and move on in life rather than doing an exercise which is probably even more harmful. I hear the CIA was making ISIS do Smith machine squats until they were threatened to be charged with war crimes. There are seriously so many better alternatives.

Leg press causes me spine compression in a bad way, and leg extensions do a similar thing. In my entire time smith squatting, it never once aggravated my issue. It was a fantastic exercise in my situation and I don't have a single regret doing it.

Myself and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one. I ran the Texas Method for over 2 years with the only difference being alternating between a 5RM and a 3RM. Helped me hit a 455 squat as an under-181 lifter and I was getting close to 4 plates for my volume day before Uncle Sam taught me to go to Iraq again. I have to check my old journals but I'm pretty sure I was using around my body weight for my first volume day. I did have some deloads but every lifter does. I know from previous discussions about the Texas Method right here on this forum that there are other posters too who have had a lot of success over a few years with the TM.

The argument you're making is that the best level of stimulus to get you from your bodyweight squat, to being a bit stronger, is virtually the same as the best stimulus to get you from a bit under that 450 squat, to the 450 squat.


Plus if you started volume days with bodyweight on squats, (presumably), you were probably still a novice. Hence, a longer run of TM.

Can't say I've ever seen a guy who was strict pressing his body weight over head for reps who was lacking in shoulder development. I'm pretty sure a lot of posters here on these forums would love to look like Eugene Sandow as well.

Can't say I've ever seen a guy who was strict high incline pressing his body weight, (plus a little more to account for the slightly better leverages), over head for reps who was lacking in shoulder development, either. Just because you like the exercise doesn't give it a monopoly.

The fact that you consider the original Texas Method flawed and this monstrosity isn't makes me feel bad for you. It must be hard finding a hat that fits a head swollen that big.

I feel bad for you, actually. You're a decade older than me but you're a child. You can't have a conversation without throwing your toys around the cot for not getting your own way. You can't even restrain your anger in an argument about a weight training program.

This is where your ignorance really shows. Volume by itself isn't the most important thing if frequency and intensity are at the right levels. That is strength training programming 101. In this routine the frequency and intensity are both high so there does not need to be as much volume.

No single training variable will make a program good if other important variables are at the wrong levels. But that's exactly why TM should be adjusted. Because the volume is problematic for the kind of program that it is. The frequency and intensity are alright.

Slapping on a bunch of extra garbage for the sake of "volume" with no regard to the detriment of the actual program itself is exactly the kind of thing every beginner lifter that posts their own routine is guilty of.

And ignoring the value of volume in a program, and not being smart enough to add work where appropriate, is exactly the thing that he who does not truly understand programming is guilty of.

[NZninja101]

You're 22 with, what, 1-2 years of serious barbell lifting behind you? You may feel differently when you're 64 with 40 years' lifting behind you. Some things we do for gainzzz, some things we do for health. The press offers some gainzzz but mostly it's health.

I appreciate the civility, Kyle. But it's straight up ridiculous to expect somebody to listen to an older person just because of their age and that they've been doing something for a long time. I can just imagine the bizarre way how I would instantaneously shift from believing X, to believing Y, to believing X, to believing Y, because older men with different opinions have said different things. Experience isn't useless, of course. But comments which conflict with reason are crap, whether from a peasant or a king.


If you want to talk about experience, I can talk about mine, how I improved my shoulder health dramatically with the inclusion of shoulder isolation work, particularly of the rear delt. How since focusing on incline and taking a break from overhead pressing, my shoulders feel the best they ever had.

If we're going by appeal to authority, then I could just point to Boris Sheiko as a coach who has produced far far stronger athletes than Mark Rippetoe ever did, but that doesn't mean that all of Rippe's opinions which differ from Boris's are then over-ruled by Boris who's then assumed to be always right. In reality they would both probably have something to learn from each other.

For example, one thing you discover on trying things is that a simple comparison of number of sets doesn't tell the whole story. For example, the weight lifted is also significant. As the weight goes up, the reps and sets drop - but it's just as hard, or harder. It's this sort of thing you learn after some years lifting and helping others lift.

The higher volumes achieved through higher strength levels aren't something I haven't thought about. If it weren't for this, then TM would work worse than it currently does. But that doesn't exclude it from the possibility of it being able to work better. Perhaps except for a few ideas like freedom of speech, it can be destructive to hold certain things as beyond question, or as being infallible and unable to be questioned. Anybody here should be as free to question this routine as I am free to question the original template.

[retiredrunner]

What are your numbers, NZ? Are you training primarily for strength or a mix? Curious.

[Kameronn]

[KyleAaron]

Actually, mate, Rippetoe didn't come up with the Texas Method. Pendlay did. Story goes, he was working as the WL coach in WFAC. All his lifters were squatting for 5x5 Mondays and Fridays. One Friday a lifter said, "Seriously... 5x5... again?"
"Fck you. Give me a 5 rep PR and you can strip the bar and go home."
"Really? Just one heavy set of 5 and that's it?"
"Yes. But it has to be a PR."
Lifter loads the bar up, knocks out a 5 rep PR, goes home.
Next Friday rolls around...

And so they started experimenting with it. Rip just built on that foundation. But so far as I know, most of the variations on TM presented in PPST3e are from Andy Baker.

So it's not just one experienced guy. It's 3 of them. Or a lot more if you look at the acknowledgements section of the book.

You're free to question as much as you like. But I'm reminded of something S John Ross - a roleplaying game authour - said about an old mailing list for a game he'd written for. "You can tell the difference between the questions people come up with from actual play, and those they come up with just from reading the book." Likewise, we can tell the difference between the questions someone has about a programme when they've actually followed it, and the questions they have when they're just sitting there with a spreadsheet.

All questions are allowed. But questions which arise from experience of the thing tend to be more useful than those which come just from thinking about the thing. This is not saying, "You can't question! Rip is teh bestest n u r dumb lolz!" This is saying: try it and see, then suggest changes. Lots of people have done that, which is why PPST3e is longer and has more options than PPST2e or 1e. It's not an argument from authority to say that someone who has been laid has more insights about sex than a virgin; experience of a thing matters.

Speaking for myself, I don't prescribe vanilla TM for many of my lifters. Basically it just smashes most people. It's okay for people in their teens or 20s living with their parents and just lifting, but if you're 35+ with a full-time job and a family it just takes too much out of you. I don't train people 15-25 living with their parent because they're all broke or stingy and can't or won't pay for training. The rest have stresses outside the gym and less than ideal recovery.

Programming is nothing more than balancing stress and recovery - and if the person has stresses outside the gym, or if their recovery can only be less than ideal (you don't sleep as well with a toddler or a mortgage as you do without them), then they can't handle as much stress inside the gym. So when you lift for long enough, or work with others for long enough, you learn that people need less volume on TM (and other programmes) more often than they need more volume.

Try it for 3 months or more, then modify it.

[KyleAaron]

What are your numbers, NZ? Are you training primarily for strength or a mix? Curious.

Honestly, it should be compulsory for people to put their numbers or those of people they've trained in their sig - if they want to offer any advice. I had mine but took them out with the link to my gym's page when I was modded up, I'll put them back.

[grouchyjarhead]

The thing I would do here is emphasize that the idea of failing the intensity day because of the volume day being too much work, is your opinion, rather than a real outcome which has been established. Your opinion has been... noted. I guess my opinion that someone so adaptable that they can progress in 5lb jumps weekly won't fail some sets of 5 at lower weights after 1 heavy set and a few backoffs of squats and deadlifts 48hrs ago is impossible to believe. lol.

Under the standard TM template, you have three days in between volume and intensity days, then two days in between those. In your bastardized version you have one day of rest in between the two, essentially halving the recovery time. The only reason why it doesn't make sense to you is because you've never run it the way it's supposed to to begin with. I find it mind boggling someone tries to modify something go "make it better" when they don't even try it correctly in the first place. Volume day literally causes people to lose sleep at night it can suck so bad.

Plus if you started volume days with bodyweight on squats, (presumably), you were probably still a novice. Hence, a longer run of TM.

I started lighter due to being off several weeks due to military obligations. At the time I had just finished a high rep squat cycle so my conservative 1RM was maybe low to mid 300s. Not really pertinent, but in case you were wondering.

I feel bad for you, actually. You're a decade older than me but you're a child. You can't have a conversation without throwing your toys around the cot for not getting your own way. You can't even restrain your anger in an argument about a weight training program.

I don't see where I'm throwing a tantrum. In fact it seems it's the opposite. You present this as if it's a work of art, then when anyone has anything negative to say about it rather than listen and possibly research on what they're saying you ignore it. Believing your few meager years of experience is somehow superior to men who have trained hundreds of athletes successfully using this same protocol is what's really childish.

No single training variable will make a program good if other important variables are at the wrong levels. But that's exactly why TM should be adjusted. Because the volume is problematic for the kind of program that it is. The frequency and intensity are alright.

And ignoring the value of volume in a program, and not being smart enough to add work where appropriate, is exactly the thing that he who does not truly understand programming is guilty of.

This is hilarious.

More intensity = less volume simply due to recovery. Some lifters on the TM wait 10 minutes in between their volume sets because the intensity is so high. 5 sets at 90% tends to do that.

More volume = less intensity simply because you need longer to rest in between. On your intensity day you recommend after finding your new 5RM you drop the weight 10-15% and do 3x5. So after your new 5RM now you want to do three sets of what is basically your volume day numbers which you then have to do 5 sets of with one day of rest in between. And you think this will have no negative correlation whatsoever.

And I'm the one who doesn't understand programming...

[grouchyjarhead]

Actually, mate, Rippetoe didn't come up with the Texas Method. Pendlay did.

I was going to correct him on that as well. Rippetoe helped popularize it as he saw the value in it but all credit for creation goes to Glenn.

EDIT: Found him talking about the birth of it.

https://m.reddit.com/r/weightroom/co...is_squat_from/

Programming is nothing more than balancing stress and recovery - and if the person has stresses outside the gym, or if their recovery can only be less than ideal (you don't sleep as well with a toddler or a mortgage as you do without them), then they can't handle as much stress inside the gym. So when you lift for long enough, or work with others for long enough, you learn that people need less volume on TM (and other programmes) more often than they need more volume.

Try it for 3 months or more, then modify it.

Cannot agree more.

[KyleAaron]

Well, it's a bit of trivia really, can't fault the lad for not knowing that. But Dan John said, "Know and love the history of your sport." If you know who came up with things and how they came about, I think it does help make sense of them today. Like your "beginner powerbuilding routine" referring to Doug Young. You read around a bit all the way back to guys like Saxon and Hackenschmidtt, you see how much in common they had with ideas today and what's changed, and you get a better appreciation of why certain people, ideas and programmes are respected.

It's also worthwhile looking at grouchyjarhead's routine in his sig, if only for his intro: he lays out his experience lifting and coaching, so you can put his advice in that context when judging its worth. In these days of the anonymous expert that sort of thing is unusual and refreshing, and something our OP and others like him can learn from.

[retiredrunner]

Honestly, it should be compulsory for people to put their numbers or those of people they've trained in their sig - if they want to offer any advice. I had mine but took them out with the link to my gym's page when I was modded up, I'll put them back.

Definitely. Excellent point regarding the types of questions posed; there is a world of difference in perspective between formulating theory and actually applying it. The thought of back off sets (10-15% reduction 3x5, Jesus) after an intensity set with volume following one day of rest makes me wince.

[KyleAaron]

EDIT: Found him talking about the birth of it.

https://m.reddit.com/r/weightroom/co...is_squat_from/

Thanks for this link. Go read it, OP. It's an excellent of people trying something and then modifying it, and an "authority" saying, "well, that works, let's stick with it." This is the sort of back-and-forth you get with a bunch of people lifting and coaching for years. It's not like someone just sat down with a notepad one day and made this sht up out of nothing.

[retiredrunner]

@grouchy: Following Lascek's (or whoever was first) suggestion to let intensity dictate volume was The Best Thing To Happen to my Hips and Ass. I backed off volume to ~85% and I still rest like 10 min, lol.

[NZninja101]

Actually, mate, Rippetoe didn't come up with the Texas Method. Pendlay did. Story goes, he was working as the WL coach in WFAC. All his lifters were squatting for 5x5 Mondays and Fridays. One Friday a lifter said, "Seriously... 5x5... again?"
"Fck you. Give me a 5 rep PR and you can strip the bar and go home."
"Really? Just one heavy set of 5 and that's it?"
"Yes. But it has to be a PR."
Lifter loads the bar up, knocks out a 5 rep PR, goes home.
Next Friday rolls around...

And so they started experimenting with it. Rip just built on that foundation. But so far as I know, most of the variations on TM presented in PPST3e are from Andy Baker.

So it's not just one experienced guy. It's 3 of them. Or a lot more if you look at the acknowledgements section of the book.

I know. My assumption was that Rippe is the primary teacher of TM today, (ie the most well known person who uses it and has the largest community behind him), not that he came up with it. It's possible that I'm still wrong on that.

You're free to question as much as you like. But I'm reminded of something S John Ross - a roleplaying game authour - said about an old mailing list for a game he'd written for. "You can tell the difference between the questions people come up with from actual play, and those they come up with just from reading the book." Likewise, we can tell the difference between the questions someone has about a programme when they've actually followed it, and the questions they have when they're just sitting there with a spreadsheet.

You're trying to make it appear I haven't run the program when I have and I want to make that clear to anybody reading.

You're also free to ask me as many questions as you'd like.

All questions are allowed. But questions which arise from experience of the thing tend to be more useful than those which come just from thinking about the thing. This is not saying, "You can't question! Rip is teh bestest n u r dumb lolz!" This is saying: try it and see, then suggest changes. Lots of people have done that, which is why PPST3e is longer and has more options than PPST2e or 1e. It's not an argument from authority to say that someone who has been laid has more insights about sex than a virgin; experience of a thing matters.

That's a false equivalency since I've run the program.


Access to this experience is important. If a novice is looking at running the Texas Method template, then damn right I'll recommend this instead because it's probably better. But if this person is actually scouring the collective works of those who have coached others, such as Rippe, Pendlay and others, and is actually being coached by one of these highly reputable people, then that's not a situation that I'm going to wrongfully step into. This template > the standard template, but this template =/= getting actually coached, making adjustments over a long period, organized by an experienced coach. That's not a template. That's something far more.

Speaking for myself, I don't prescribe vanilla TM for many of my lifters. Basically it just smashes most people. It's okay for people in their teens or 20s living with their parents and just lifting, but if you're 35+ with a full-time job and a family it just takes too much out of you. I don't train people 15-25 living with their parent because they're all broke or stingy and can't or won't pay for training. The rest have stresses outside the gym and less than ideal recovery.

I'll keep that in mind. But this template comes from an expansion of volume from Starting Strength. If the person is having trouble handling that kind of workload, then that's rather telling of their likelihood in struggling on this program.

[NZninja101]

Under the standard TM template, you have three days in between volume and intensity days, then two days in between those. In your bastardized version you have one day of rest in between the two, essentially halving the recovery time. The only reason why it doesn't make sense to you is because you've never run it the way it's supposed to to begin with.

To those reading this: this is untrue.

I find it mind boggling someone tries to modify something go "make it better" when they don't even try it correctly in the first place. Volume day literally causes people to lose sleep at night it can suck so bad.

To those reading: This is untrue.

I don't see where I'm throwing a tantrum.

Of course you don't.

In fact it seems it's the opposite.

Of course. Nothing is ever your fault. It's my fault that you're unable to not deviate from discussion to then go to untrue claims, insults and the like.

You present this as if it's a work of art,

Where have I stated this to be a work of art? You're simply projecting.

then when anyone has anything negative to say about it rather than listen and possibly research on what they're saying you ignore it.

I've been more than willing to listen to you. What the problem is, is that you don't understand the difference between refusing to listen to somebody, and hearing what they have to say, but seeing no evidence for their claims, and questioning them. You're not above questioning mate, don't pretend otherwise.

Believing your few meager years of experience is somehow superior to men who have trained hundreds of athletes successfully using this same protocol is what's really childish.

You act like because somebody proposes a different template to the established model, which contains less sets over time than Starting Strength, that gives you the right to make evidence-less claims, baseless insults and appeals to authority, which I could then use with different strength coaches who've achieved more for their athletes than Rippe.

This is hilarious.

More intensity = less volume simply due to recovery. Some lifters on the TM wait 10 minutes in between their volume sets because the intensity is so high. 5 sets at 90% tends to do that.

More volume = less intensity simply because you need longer to rest in between. On your intensity day you recommend after finding your new 5RM you drop the weight 10-15% and do 3x5. So after your new 5RM now you want to do three sets of what is basically your volume day numbers which you then have to do 5 sets of with one day of rest in between. And you think this will have no negative correlation whatsoever.

And I'm the one who doesn't understand programming...

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you're able to go off on a bizarre tangent based on some sort of assumption that I've said something I didn't in order to distract from the facts.

[grouchyjarhead]

You're trying to make it appear I haven't run the program when I have and I want to make that clear to anybody reading.

So you've run the actual standard three day template? Or your 5 day butchered version?

I've been more than willing to listen to you. What the problem is, is that you don't understand the difference between refusing to listen to somebody, and hearing what they have to say, but seeing no evidence for their claims, and questioning them. You're not above questioning mate, don't pretend otherwise.

I recommended you one of the best resources for the Texas Method right off the bat. You brushed it off. If you want to modify the TM that book is required reading.

You act like because somebody proposes a different template to the established model, which contains less sets over time than Starting Strength, that gives you the right to make evidence-less claims, baseless insults and appeals to authority, which I could then use with different strength coaches who've achieved more for their athletes than Rippe.

If you're using the TM then you do need to go to its biggest proponents. You're also discounting Pendlay who is still using this methodology to train weightlifters to this very day.

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you're able to go off on a bizarre tangent based on some sort of assumption that I've said something I didn't in order to distract from the facts.

So you didn't suggest this on Saturday?

Saturday:
Squat 1X5 PR, 10-15% weight drop, 3 more sets of 5
Bench 1X5 PR, 10-15% weight drop, 3 more sets of 5
Deadlift 1X5 PR, 15% weight drop, 2 more sets of 5

So after finding your 5RM in the squat and bench, you then do three more sets at 90-85% your 1RM. Then two more after your deadlift 5RM at 85%. Then after one day of rest you're back to 5x5 @ 90% your 5RM on Monday. This is ridiculous.

If you read the Pendlay link above, you'd see that because his athlete had more volume in his training session he actually lowered the volume work on squats to 3x5 instead of 5x5. Less volume and intensity on squats, for more volume on the Olympic lifts. Because he understands the relationship of volume to balance intensity.

[KyleAaron]

This template > the standard template

This is not yet clear.

To expand on what I said in mentioning how we should put our lifts and/or the lifts of those we've coached in our sigs: results count. Tell us about the results of people who've followed this template, whether it be 1,000 others or just you. If the answer, dragged out of you after much painful back-and-forth is, "well, no-one's tried it yet" - well then go and do it. Try your method for at least 3 months, then come back and report on it.

We have actual results from people who've tried TM and its commonly-prescribed variations. This is why we say, for example, that the claim "it's not enough volume" is a strange one, since the variations in practice usually lead to less volume, like the 3 sets of 5 for volume day of Pendlay's lifter. If your results are the opposite, that would be a very surprising result which would we all like to know more about. Offer us your results, or the results of people you've coached. If you can't yet, that's fine: go get some results.

"This works! Really!"
"Great. Show me."
Will there finally be a response to this? Will you continue to avoid the question of how much you or your lifters actually lift on this programme of yours by complaining about someone's tone?

[grouchyjarhead]

What's sad is we had this exact same question a year ago when he first learned of the TM.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...t=Texas+Method

My recommendations in that thread are the same in this one. I even recommended the same book that I recommended in this thread to learn more about it. You can see how well that worked.

According to his log he first discovered the TM last January. He started with some strange 5 day version, kept manipulating it (AMRAP sets on volume and intensity day, dropping to 4x4, etc.). Did that for about 3 months and has been running upper/lowers since.

Unfortunately because it's all over the place it's difficult to judge if he had even made any progress or not.

Not sure when he's supposed to have run it as a standard 3 day template.

[KyleAaron]

Went and looked for his journal, it's here. I am too lazy to study every page but it looks even more muddled with less of a plan than grouchyjarhead suggests, with things like 7 sets of 7 bench press with 80kg, etc. Looks like he's squatted 100kg for 12 and benched 90 for a bunch. I can't find any mention of deadlifts, stacks of close-grip and incline bench, ab wheel rollouts and the like. All fine and useful things, but not SS or TM. Let's call it a 1RM of squat 120kg, bench 100kg. With that if he tried he should be able to deadlift 140 or so assuming normal proportions and some concentration.

120/100/140 as 1RMs is pretty much what healthy young guys who do a proper run of SS for 3-4 months get if they microload bench and eat well; if they insist on 2.5kg jumps and/or eat poorly they get stuck on 80 or so. So our NZ friend did a bit better on bench (there is a mention of not squatting for two years, not sure why), but from a casual glance over his log it looks like he did a LOT of upper body stuff, so I'm not surprised. These numbers in this time what I've found in training people, and also what I saw in some years on the SS forum, and talking to SSCs. I think this is a pretty good level for health, and a fair base for all sorts of sports and so on. Nothing to be ashamed of by any means. But perhaps not a basis for advising other people on a good intermediate programme. So here's hoping he has other people's results for us to look at.

[NZninja101]

So you've run the actual standard three day template? Or your 5 day butchered version?

Standard setup. 3 days a week, full body approach. Not what you've found in the log.

I recommended you one of the best resources for the Texas Method right off the bat. You brushed it off. If you want to modify the TM that book is required reading.

I've obtained the book now. I'll check it out.

So you didn't suggest this on Saturday?

Saturday:
Squat 1X5 PR, 10-15% weight drop, 3 more sets of 5
Bench 1X5 PR, 10-15% weight drop, 3 more sets of 5
Deadlift 1X5 PR, 15% weight drop, 2 more sets of 5

Your paragraph about volume and intensity isn't explained by the the fact that I said this.

So after finding your 5RM in the squat and bench, you then do three more sets at 90-85% your 1RM. Then two more after your deadlift 5RM at 85%. Then after one day of rest you're back to 5x5 @ 90% your 5RM on Monday. This is ridiculous.

This is incorrect. You would perform 3 more sets at 85, (90 if you thought you could handle it), percent of your 5RM on the day.

This is not yet clear.

To expand on what I said in mentioning how we should put our lifts and/or the lifts of those we've coached in our sigs: results count. Tell us about the results of people who've followed this template, whether it be 1,000 others or just you. If the answer, dragged out of you after much painful back-and-forth is, "well, no-one's tried it yet" - well then go and do it. Try your method for at least 3 months, then come back and report on it.

We have actual results from people who've tried TM and its commonly-prescribed variations. This is why we say, for example, that the claim "it's not enough volume" is a strange one, since the variations in practice usually lead to less volume, like the 3 sets of 5 for volume day of Pendlay's lifter. If your results are the opposite, that would be a very surprising result which would we all like to know more about. Offer us your results, or the results of people you've coached. If you can't yet, that's fine: go get some results.

"This works! Really!"
"Great. Show me."

I understand your value of large scale results. I value that too. This is why I've made this thread. I want people, generally younger people who've done fine on SS, to do this and prove that it works.

Will there finally be a response to this? Will you continue to avoid the question of how much you or your lifters actually lift on this programme of yours by complaining about someone's tone?

Avoiding the question of personal results on this program has been an entirely separate matter to dealing with immature comments. Besides the person who asked doesn't deserve an explanation. But you and Grouch do. It's a little further down.

What's sad is we had this exact same question a year ago when he first learned of the TM.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...t=Texas+Method

My recommendations in that thread are the same in this one. I even recommended the same book that I recommended in this thread to learn more about it. You can see how well that worked.

According to his log he first discovered the TM last January. He started with some strange 5 day version, kept manipulating it (AMRAP sets on volume and intensity day, dropping to 4x4, etc.). Did that for about 3 months and has been running upper/lowers since.

Unfortunately because it's all over the place it's difficult to judge if he had even made any progress or not.

Not sure when he's supposed to have run it as a standard 3 day template.

That's not the one I was referring to. I wouldn't refer to running that as simply doing the Texas Method.

Went and looked for his journal, it's here. I am too lazy to study every page but it looks even more muddled with less of a plan than grouchyjarhead suggests, with things like 7 sets of 7 bench press with 80kg, etc. Looks like he's squatted 100kg for 12 and benched 90 for a bunch. I can't find any mention of deadlifts, stacks of close-grip and incline bench, ab wheel rollouts and the like. All fine and useful things, but not SS or TM. Let's call it a 1RM of squat 120kg, bench 100kg. With that if he tried he should be able to deadlift 140 or so assuming normal proportions and some concentration.

I can hit 100 for 5 on bench. I did a 140kg for 7 deadlift in 2012. You shouldn't try to call a squat max on me considering my injuries, thought I've done 125kg for 5 in 2013. However, my own personal results are completely irrelevant. I don't use my own personal results to prop up this program. I use the underlying concept that as you advance, you tend to require higher workloads to progress.


I will stress this again. I don't use my own results to support this program. They are irrelevant. Now that this is established, people who do not understand the concept I do not concern myself with.

120/100/140 as 1RMs is pretty much what healthy young guys who do a proper run of SS for 3-4 months get if they microload bench and eat well; if they insist on 2.5kg jumps and/or eat poorly they get stuck on 80 or so. So our NZ friend did a bit better on bench (there is a mention of not squatting for two years, not sure why), but from a casual glance over his log it looks like he did a LOT of upper body stuff, so I'm not surprised. These numbers in this time what I've found in training people, and also what I saw in some years on the SS forum, and talking to SSCs. I think this is a pretty good level for health, and a fair base for all sorts of sports and so on. Nothing to be ashamed of by any means. But perhaps not a basis for advising other people on a good intermediate programme.

Opinion noted, but I'll certainly not relent in advising others in the manner I do. You can hold your values for giving your own advice to others, and I'll hold my own. If you find me trying to give advice to significantly stronger people based on my own results rather than logic, evidence and reason then call me out.