>>35074080
Yes
If there's a book about it, read it.
Bodybuilding.com articles are worthless.

If you're on gear, yes.

>>35074124
>believing that you have to be on gear and not use the appropriate weight % and recovery
Americans pls go.

>>35074130
It's too much volume for a natty.
You can do it for maybe a month, then you're done.

>>35074139
Well duh. Those shock cycles are made to be ran 1-3 months tops. It's still a very legit way to train and it will increase your max and make you bigger. It's like a non-retarded Smolov.

>>35074150
Ar what point would you say is a person fit enough for a 1 month GVT cycle?
1/2/3/4?

>>35074169
I'd say off-season late-intermediate/early-advanced. You have enough form and technique not to kill yourself from form-breakdown and you can tolerate more volume than your noob and intermediate colleagues.

>>35074180
Thanks

>>35074080
How about do a normal routine

>>35074150
Smolov is retarded. Now I've heart everything on this shit board.

>>35074793

Its the considered opinion of a lot of rather strong people. When it works, you hit big squat PRs (although often at the expense of your bench and deadlift). When it doesn't, and this is much of the time for many people, you break down and go backwards.

It was originally intended for oly lifters and it really shows.

>>35074806
Yeah, show me those studies claiming it doesn't work.

>>35074793
You use Smolov if you want to aggressively increase your squat in order to set a record or something. After that you de-train and lose your "gains" because you can't support that volume until the end of time. Your total also takes a big hit because you aren't deadlifting and you won't be able to progress your bench.

If you haven't nailed the proper technique and form of the squat you run a higher risk of injury due to fatigue and lack of concentration.

People usually run it and fail because it was intended for advance lifter and coached lifters. GVT, on the other hand, is something you can incorporate.

Currently doing gvt and yes it works. Make sure to follow the routine to a tee and don't modify. Specifically the excercise, rest days, lift tempo and rest between sets. You will be sore as fuck

>>35074124
>>35074139
workouts with low 1RM% are very easy to recover from and the volume isn't even that crazy and is on par with a typical brosplit. I had much easier time recovering from GVT than from any strength routine e.g. Texas Method

>>35074931
>studies
dumbass.

>>35074124
>>35074139
I've got a question for you two. Is this honestly your opinion because then you're stupid. Or are you just repeating what you've heard other people say, because then you are stupid.
Either way you're stupid.

GVT is a high volume routine compared to traditional strength programs such as Starting Strength and similar 5x5 variations. GVT is NOT a high volume routine compared to regular bodybuilding training.
Consider the following...

5 sets of bench press
3 sets of dips
2 sets of flyes

That doesn't look so bad does it? Guess what. It's 10 sets. As is GVT. But GVT is low frequency and light weight only (doesn't really get tough until around set #5 or 6).

GVT is very doable. Also for natties. In fact, if you're juicing and using a standard GVT template I'd call you a slacker.

>>35077553
Leave them - most people on /fit/ are too caught up in the SS and 5x5 mentality to realise there are other forms of training. GVT isn't even a training routine - it's a principle that can be incorporated into any training routine (block periodisation, for example) or used as a shock-cycle.

Is using GVT cut to 5 sets as the first routine after a year-long break a good idea?

>>35078450
No

>>35078450
why do you feel the need to change routines?
just do the fucking routine you wanker

>>35074080
Did it for 5 weeks (cut it a week short because shoulders were dying from benching and ohping 10x10). Endurance definitely improved, but I made better gains in the following month on a TM split.