How would you modify the Texas Method for powerlifting?
>>37058317
texas method is made for powerlifting
also add in a bicep, tricep and ab excersize
>>37058317
Its already a powerlifting program, but whatever.
More work on the comp lifts, that's about all the changes you need to make. That and realising you won't be able to run it year-round. Most powerlifting routines aren't intended for that and TM isn't fully an exception.
>>37058478
>>37058504
>equal focus on pressing and benching
>power cleans/snatches
>powerlifting program
yeah, no though.
>>37060164
This guy is right. Do a powerlifting specific program if you want to powerlift.
>>37058317
drop ohp and bench 3 times a week instead
>>37058317
Just bench every VD and ID and OHP every RD. There you go.
>>37060164
I'm kind of confused by what you're saying, maybe we've read different programs.
Texas Method isn't a routine... It's a method.
High volume Mondays (5x5 with heavy ass weight)
Working recovery Wednesdays (3x5 with lighter weight)
Intensity on Friday (1x5 for a PR)
Apply that principle to your routine. The Monday workout is the main driver.
>>37058317
>VD
Squat, DL
>VD
Bench, chinups
>ID
Squat, DL
>ID
Bench, chinups
Or
>VD
Squat, Bench, DL only 1x5, farmers walks
>RD
Front squat, incline or CG or incline CG bench, chinups
>ID
Squat, Bench, DL
>>37060220
TM is a method. Not a program. There are powerlifting versions of it.
>>37060279
That's why I said do a powerlifting program.
>>37060259
the stock programme has you alternating bench/pressing focus - which isn't beneficial for a powerlifter.
if we argue technicalities, power cleans and snatches aren't necessarily part of the 'bare bones' routine - but they are part of the initial suggestions of the book as a 'general routine' which can be considered as the stock programme.
none of these are useful for a powerlifter
>>37060878
No it's not
How would you modify TM for pplpplx
>>37061174
you wouldn't.
>>37061148
I didn't say it was.
>>37061174
Apply the same principles
Volume/recovery/intensity
You can do it for each of separate ppl days or in cycles
I had great success when i did it like
2 volume cycles, 1recovery cycle, 2 intensity cycles ie;
Volume push (bench volume)
Volume pull (row volume)
Volume legs (sq volume)
X
Volume push (ohp volume)
Volume pull (wt pullups volume)
Volume legs (DL "volume")
X
Recovery push
Recovery pull
Recovery legs
X
Intensity push (pr on bench)
Intensity pull (rep pr on rows)
Intensity legs (pr on sq)
X
Intensity push (ohp pr)
Intensity pull (rep pre on wt pullups)
Intensity legs (pr on dead)
X
Repeat or deload or whatever
Keep in mind to respect the volume/intensity discrepancy, and not to overdo it
Ppl is great because it allows you to focus on a lot of different musclegroups (ie; vanity muscle) while still allowing you to be able to lift main lifts heavy and with enough frequency
However in pplpplx format you won't reach very far (once you get to certain weights lifring athat frequent will drain you the fuck out both physically and mentally
I'd recommend atleast 1extra day of rest between each cycle ie; pplxpplxpplxpplx...
>>37061378
And don't be stupid to drop ohp
It's alpha and omega of delt strength, and is way safer than bench (both performed correctly), though bb bench is jack-of-all-trades pushing exercise
>>37058317
Just do the program, retard. If you're actually able to make weekly 5 lbs jumps, then you're not far along enough in training to call yourself a powerlifter. Overhead work is only going to make you better.
>>37061378
>1x/week lift frequency
>volume once every 3 weeks
>almost 2 weeks between VD and ID
>basically 1 week of just recovery
at a glance, bretty fucking awful routine m8.
>>37061378
Can you elaborate on the recovery cycle?
>>37061458
I just wrote what i did
I was at 335/470/515 and didn't have small plates so upping all lifts weekly was a bit too fast for me and i didn't want to get above 210lbs
>>37061516
Basically a recovery workouts
You do what you normally do but at lower weight/volume than usual (75-80%)
>>37061458
I don't think you know how to math.
>>37061549
>UHM theres 6 days between not a week
>lmao how embarassing
>im so good at maths
you, probably
>>37061458
You read it wrong
Count each row of text as a day
>>37061541
Thanks I'm doing a version of ppl right now with each day alternating between volume and intensity. I like the look of this. I'm going to give it a try.
there is a whole e-book on this in the PLG drop box by Something Lascek from 70s Big. I'm doing it and it works great.
>>37061549
>>37061583
I did.
>volume once every 3 weeks
20 days before repeating same VD, if not deloading
>almost 2 weeks between VD and ID
11 days between VD and corresponding ID
>basically 1 week of recovery
5 days between last VD and first ID
autists
>>37061572
I literally have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Do you?
>>37061592
The progression i did was slower than original tm, but it suited me fine because i couldn't handle upping the weights constantly with stats i already had >>37061518
maybe you will be able to, you have to test that on yourself and see how it's working for you
Once the weights get heavier, all cookie-cutter routines that once worked well will be inadequate and you'll soon find yourself stalling
Now if you payed any attention to your training and how it affected your size/strenght, by the time that happens you'll already know what's the next step
>>37061659
Ah. I see what you're saying. My fault. But still I don't think that looks terrible. I would just adjust it to incorporate both push lifts, pull lifts or leg lifts each day. I think that would be more efficient. I guess I was assuming he would do the same.
>>37061716
I'm >>37061378
and i did that, ie;
1st itensity push day was: 5x3 ohp (1st triple was a pr, next sets of 3 were done at 90-95%), followed by 3x5 paused cgbp or spoto bp (at lower weight)
2nd intensity push day was: 5x3 bench (1st triple as a pr, rest as a back-off sets at90-95%), followed by ohp for 3x5 at lower weight
Similar with rows/pullups, and squats/dl (here i usex variations of lifts, ie; squat as a main lift + rdl as lighter accessory or dead as a main lidt + frsq as lighter accessory)
>>37061886
Good we're on the same page then. That's pretty much what assumed.
