>he fell for the "5x5 will make you big" meme
You can't lift 2/3/4/5 without being big
Working for me so far. I'm seeing gains.
>>35611924
Yes you can.
>>35611565
5x5 is known primarily for strength gains you shitlord.
But muh husbando mode
>3x10 bench with 1pl8
>expects to be bigger than guy who does 3x10 with 2pl8
kek
If you do 5x5 minus accessories you'll be strong but it won't show really. But at the end of the day, it you eat right, a person who can bench 225 for 5x5 will most likely be bigger than someone who can bench 135 for 5x5.
for most people training in the 5-8 rep range, strength = size.
you only ever get raw strength from like 1-3 rep range with heavy singles and doubles etc
I've gained a ton of good mass off the 5x5, really helped shape my entire body (with accessories). 4/10 for making me reply tho. Not bad
>>35612621
Do you weak fags honestly think 2pl8 bench is hard? Id say thats advanced beginner hit it in 3 months, inb4 youre fat , no stay mad
>>35612621
Sortof this.
You can limit muscle mass gains by never bulking and just doing lots of really low reps with low volume.
5x5 is a good medium for strength and size. 5x5 + high rep move for the same muscles + food will result in good size gains. 5x5 by itself may even.
If your main goal is size and you dont give a fuck about strength, I think something like 4x8 or even 3x10 is better.
Studies have shown 3x10 gives the EXACT same size gains as 5x5, ALMOST the same strength gains, yet 5x5 takes 3x longer (assumung 3 min rest periods on 5x5, 2 mins on 3x10) and has a higher chance for injury (because of heavier loading and it's a more maximal effort).
8x3 is pretty much equivalent to 5x5 volume wise too... But it takes a hell of a lot longer.
Very good point here: the reason higher reps is traditionally thought of as better for bodybuilding is not because you can't grow with low reps/grow less, but because you can accumulate a lot of volume in shorter periods of time.
It can take fucking half an hour to do 8 sets of 3. You'll get slightly more strength gains than higher reps. It can take you 5 fucking minutes to do 3x10, which still leaves you more time to do more work for that muscle, if you did nothing but low reps, you'd not only be exhausted and even burn out, but you could be in the gym for 2 hours just to do half your body.
It depends on goals. 5x5 is a good middle ground
5x5 helped me a lot, it mostly comes down to consistency along with eating a lot. Squatting 3 times a week gives you a nice body
>>35613944
>only 3 times a week
>not every single day
lol
>>35611565
i actually shrunk using 5x5. gut disappeared. strength gains were fantastic though. i actually prefer this to the bodybuilder thing. i look rather unassuming, but weigh much more and lift more than i seemingly should.
>>35613676
who the fuck does 8 sets of 3?
>>35611924
What is 2/3/4/5?
>>35613944
dude, squat every workout day, not just three times a week. alternate heavy squat days and light squat days.
>>35613676
Everything you said is wrong and not backed up.
>>35615484
Powershitters and Oly lifters and idiots
>>35615516
Okay
So ur telling me 8 sets x 3 minutes does not equal a total of 20 minutes?
and 5 sets with 4 rest periods 4x3 does not equal 12 minutes?
and 2x2 doesnr equal 4 minutes?
didnt know that was wrong.. I really guess 8x3 is more efficient time wise than 3x10
idiot
look up some of the rep range studies by your self. as long as volume is equated, growth is the same, whether doing fucking sets of 15 or sets of 3. there is an infographic from strengtheory.net or whatever
>>35615495
2 pl8 ohp -> 225lbs/100kg
3 pl8 bench -> 315lbs/140kg
4 pl8 squat -> 405lbs/180kg
5 pl8 deadlift -> 495lbs/220kg
which will take most people more then a couple years
>>35615505
This guy knows whats up.
There is literally no reason to not squat every single day, unless ofcourse you're a pussy.
>>35615643
I can tell you've not even read the sticky. Everything you need to know about volume is there.
>>35615726
you're the one that knows fuck all about volume, friend.
i know as much as i'll ever need in the way of volume, faggot.
>>35613676
Let the people who actually lift reply
>>35615865
I guess 8-12 reps the ultimate for growth then and I'm wrong mate, sorry. the hypertrophy range is the only way to grow :(
>>35615726
The sticky is shit and basically just tells you to do SS and GOMAD. The only reason anyone would think the sticky is a good source for anything but the most basic information is because it's the only thing they read on strength training and sports science
>>35611974
5x5 only works for those who still benefit from the novice effect.
anyone with 18 months or more training experience will have to do something else. SS is a waste of time even for the mediocre lifter with a little mileage under their belt.
Any good program would have a mixture of different set structures and number of repetitions so I don't understand what you fags are arguing about.
All that matters for hypertrophy is going to failure. These bait threads are the gayest thing on this board.
>>35616131
>going to failiure
just stupid.. absolutely stupid.
imo most get better gains staying JUST short of failure
>>35615745
>>35615925
Well then please continue not getting the most out of your workouts, but you shouldn't confuse the kids that come here for help. No need to get so emotional.
>>35616602
How do I know that you haven't finished SS yet?
Why do people keep discussing about something like SS?
Its STARTING Strength, its not meant to be used forever. There is nothing to talk about, its good basic training for beginners getting into lifting. After you build yourself a base, you jump to other routines and add shit. SS is meant to teach you basic movements and give you a good build so you can work on other things.
I don't even know why people talk about routines. You fucking work what you need to work dude, its different for everyone, if you lack shoulders, you work on those. If you lack chest, you work chest. The other shit you do just to keep yourself in shape and don't neglect the rest of your body.
>>35616620
I could say the same about you, but instead I will refer to the sticky that contains all of the prominent strength coaches wisdom. If some anonymous shitposter gets mad when his stupid theories are questioned, it's a red flag he has no clue what he's talking about.
>>35616850
I don't know what you're talking about really. Prominent strength coaches? The sticky is really basic and doesn't even talk much about strength training or programming.
