Stronger 24/7 - Stronger Everyday
Stronger 24/7 Forum
5 3 1Split AdviceTraining Programs

5/3/1 boring but BIG question15170

swollenscott private msg quote post Address this user
To all those who have completed Wendler's 5/3/1 BBB I was wondering if you add any accessory exercises on the two leg days.

deadlift 5/3/1
squat 5x10
abs

squat 5/3/1
deadlift 5x10
abs

Would adding in a small amount of hamstring curls or any other form of extra accessory work be advisable without going over the top? Thanks
Post 1 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
I personally did add curls. Functionality and health > bodybuilding. -3X
Post 2 IP   flag post
golagola private msg quote post Address this user
@swollenscott

calf work and if u want 3 set of leg extension or curl just for pump alittle,
i just answered u on your last post :S
Post 3 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
^^ I wouldn't add extensions. Squats and deads already work the quads disproportionately. -3X
Post 4 IP   flag post
golagola private msg quote post Address this user
@eknight
5 reps will not give the pump he need for gaining muscle as 3 set of extension as finisher and it metter what kind of deadlift does he do if it is stiff legged it is not really work the quad .
Post 5 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
1) He clearly lists deadlifts, not stiff-leg.
2) Pump has nothing to do with growth. Recent studies have shown the same hypertrophy between 3-5 rep routines and 10-12 rep.
3) Adequate direct hamstring work that involves knee flexion- not extension- is needed to protect the ACL and knee health in general in order to offset anterior tibial translation. -3X
Post 6 IP   flag post
Dem41 private msg quote post Address this user
you can go with what jim has programed in the books, 5 sets of 10 leg curls
Post 7 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dem41
you can go with what jim has programed in the books, 5 sets of 10 leg curls


Perfect answer. -3X
Post 8 IP   flag post
golagola private msg quote post Address this user
@eknight

so u say that i can work only in the 5-3 range and get muscle as i could if i did 10-12 reps ?
nevere heard about it,
all the reasearch i have seen show better muscle gain in the 10-12 ,
even powerlifters put some high reps for bodybuilding .
i have read the jim wendler book and he says to do high reps for muscle .

even u told me in the past that i cant get muscle from strengh routine , if u want i can search and send u this
Post 9 IP   flag post
IrishGymSheep private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by golagola
@eknight

so u say that i can work only in the 5-3 range and get muscle as i could if i did 10-12 reps ?
nevere heard about it,
all the reasearch i have seen show better muscle gain in the 10-12 ,
even powerlifters put some high reps for bodybuilding .
i have read the jim wendler book and he says to do high reps for muscle .

even u told me in the past that i cant get muscle from strengh routine , if u want i can search and send u this

could you link any of those studies?
Post 10 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
From The Journal of Exercise Physiology (online), Volume 7 Number 3 June 2004, by RALPH N. CARPINELLI, ROBERT M. OTTO, RICHARD A. WINETT.

Berger (19) trained 199 male college students who performed one maximal set of the free-weight bench press 3x/wk for 12 weeks. Training for each of the six groups differed in the number of repetitions performed: 2 RM, 4 RM, 6 RM, 8 RM, 10 RM, or 12 RM. Although Berger (19) only reported the post-training means, his analysis of covariance revealed a significantly greater gain in strength (1 RM) for the 4 RM, 6 RM, and 8 RM groups compared with the 2 RM group, with no significant difference between the 4 RM, 6 RM, and 8 RM groups. The 4 RM and 8 RM groups showed a greater increase than the 2 RM and 10 RM groups. The strength gain for the 8 RM group was significantly greater than the 2 RM, 10 RM, and 12 RM groups, with no significant difference between the 2 RM, 10 RM, and 12 RM groups. Contrary to the claim in the Position
Stand, Berger (19) reported that the 6 RM group produced strength gains that were not significantly different from the 4 RM and 8 RM groups (Table 2, p. 337).

O’Shea (20) randomly assigned 30 young, previously untrained, male college students to perform three sets of free-weight barbell squats 3x/wk for six weeks using one of three repetition ranges: 2-3 RM, 5-6 RM, or 9-10 RM. There was a significant increase in dynamic 1 RM squat (21.8, 26.7, and 20.4 %, 2-3 RM, 5-6 RM and 9-10 RM groups, respectively), static strength on a lower-body dynamometer (23.2, 15.5, and 21.1 %, 2-3 RM, 5-6 RM and 9-10 RM groups, respectively), and thigh girth (3-6 %). There was no significant difference among the groups for any of the changes. O’Shea (20) concluded that the three training protocols resulted in similar improvements in thigh girth, static strength and dynamic strength.

Weiss and colleagues reported the effects of resistance training with different ranges of repetitions on muscular strength in one publication (21) and hypertrophy in another (22). They randomly assigned 44 males (18-30 years), who were not previously engaged in any systematic physical training, to one of three training groups or a control group. Subjects performed four sets of free-weight barbell squats to muscular fatigue 3x/wk for seven weeks using a 3-5 RM, 13-15 RM, or 23-25 RM protocol. The three training groups significantly increased isokinetic knee-extensor strength (percent change not reported), with no significant difference among the groups. They also significantly increased 1 RM squat, with the 3-5 RM group showing a significantly greater increase than the 23-25 RM group, but not significantly greater than the 13-15 RM group (21). Weiss et al. (22) reported quadriceps muscle thickness using ultrasound. The three training groups significantly increased quadriceps muscle thickness, with no significant difference among the three protocols. Weiss et al. (21-22) concluded that performance of four sets of barbell squats within the range of 3 RM to 15 RM three days a week for seven weeks elicits similar increases in quadriceps thickness and strength.

While some individuals may prefer a lower or higher range of repetitions for different muscle groups or for simple variation in their training, there is very little evidence to support the specificity of any particular range of repetitions. Although most resistance-training research involves previously untrained subjects, several other studies (23-26) in this population also suggest that particular outcomes are not related to a specific range of repetitions.

Bemben et al. (23) trained 25 females (41-60 years) 3x/wk for six months with either eight repetitions at 80 % 1 RM or 16 repetitions at 40 % 1 RM. Three sets for each of three lower-body and five upper-body exercises were executed on resistance machines, but only one set for each of four additional lower-body exercises: hip flexion, extension, abduction, and adduction. Three sets of exercise produced an average increase in strength of approximately 25 %, while one set produced almost twice the increase of about 49 %. Strength gains were similar as a result of performing different numbers of repetitions using either heavier or lighter resistance. That is, ~27 and ~22 %, 8-repetition and 16-repetition groups, respectively, for 3-set exercises, and ~44 and ~52 %, 8-repetition and 16-repetition groups, respectively, for 1 set exercises. As measured with ultrasound, both training groups showed significant improvements in rectus femoris cross-sectional area (~20 %) and biceps brachii cross-sectional area (~30 %), with no significant difference between groups.

Chesnut and Docherty (24) randomly assigned 24 previously untrained males (~24 years) to either a 4 RM or 10 RM group. Subjects exercised 3x/wk for 10 weeks performing seven upper-body exercises for 1-6 sets each. Both the 4 RM and 10 RM groups, respectively, significantly increased 1 RM elbow flexor strength (~13 and ~11 %) and elbow extensor strength (~22 and ~28 %), as well as the dynamic training load for the elbow flexors (~20 and ~25 %) and extensors (~22 and ~28 %), with no significant difference between the 4 RM and 10 RM groups for any of the strength gains. Both the 4 RM and 10 RM groups showed a significant increase in arm circumference (~2 and ~2.5 %, respectively) and cross-sectional area measured by MRI (~6 and ~7 %, respectively), with no significant difference between groups. Chesnut and Docherty (24) concluded that the 4
RM and 10 RM training protocols elicited similar increases in strength, muscle cross-sectional area and arm circumference.

Graves et al. (25) instructed 10 pairs of previously untrained identical twins (~19 years) to exercise the quadriceps muscles 2x/wk for 10 weeks. One of each twin performed one set of 7-10 RM and the matched twin executed one set of 15-20 RM variable resistance bilateral knee-extension exercise. Both groups had a significant increase in strength (13.2 and 12.8 %, 7-10 RM and 15-20 RM groups, respectively). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of strength gains between the identical twins, which were quintessentially matched groups.

Pruitt et al. (26) randomly assigned 26 females (65-82 years) to a control group or one of two progressive resistance-training groups (7 repetitions at 80 % 1 RM, or 14 repetitions at 40 % 1 RM), who performed three sets for each of 10 exercises 3x/wk for 52 weeks. Arm strength showed a significantly greater increase in the higher-repetition group (65.5 %) compared with the lower-repetition group (27.4 %). However, both groups (lower-repetition and higher-repetition, respectively) had significant gains in 1 RM for chest (10.1 and 15.4 %), shoulders (18.5 and 27.4 %), upper back (41.4 and 21.0 %), lower back (35.8 and 35.4 %), hips (50.9 and 66.4 %), and legs (47.6 and 42.4 %). There was no significant difference between groups in six out of seven outcomes.

All these studies (19-26) strongly suggest that within a reasonable range of repetitions, approximately 3 to 20, there does not appear to be a specific number of repetitions (e.g., 4-6, 7-10, 12-15, etc.) that will elicit more favorable gains in muscular strength, power, or hypertrophy. Therefore, the claim in the Position Stand that specific ranges of repetitions produce specific outcomes has very little scientific foundation.


There's one that was published in the last 6 months that I'll have to look for my link to. -3X
Post 11 IP   flag post
Cannonball private msg quote post Address this user
Don't bother with the one that was published in the last 6 months, it was useless and is more of a discredit to the statement imo
Post 12 IP   flag post
golagola private msg quote post Address this user
@eknight

u said
"Probably not, at least if you're doing them correctly. Hypertrophy routines train muscles to improve their hypertrophy. The above strength routines are not focused on training muscles, but instead on training specific lifts to improve them. In this case, the hypertrophy that occurs is secondary and likely will not be as much. -3X"
Post 13 IP   flag post
swollenscott private msg quote post Address this user
Thanks @golagola I didn't see the response regarding the hamstring work sorry.

Thanks @dem41 and @eknight. I'll add the 5x10 curls.
Post 14 IP   flag post
OwnsPwns private msg quote post Address this user
I do the same 5/3/1 split you have mentioned here. I used to do Leg Curls, but I really didn't like the way my lower back felt while doing them so I switched over to Lunges. After reading through these posts, I'm thinking this was a bad idea do to over development of the quads like EK mentions above. Perhaps I can just go lighter on my leg curls? Anyone else feel like the exercise puts you in an awkward position?
Post 15 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
If prone leg curls bother your lower back, you can always do seated or glute-ham raises. I'd consider addressing the reason why your back is bothered as well, though. There's a weak link in there somewhere. -3X
Post 16 IP   flag post
OwnsPwns private msg quote post Address this user
When I was younger, I came to find I had a fracture in my spine. Had to wear a back brace for over a year. (yeah did well as an overweight kid with horrible acne and braces ) Although the pain has gone, It just feels like a pull sometimes that I really didn't want to aggravate. I don't feel it on Deadlifts at all. I do weighted Dips and chins without issue as well. I could just be over exaggerating this though. It doesn't hurt, just feels like a pull....
Post 17 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
I gotcha. Sorry to hear that and glad you've recovered. Are glute-hams an option? -3X
Post 18 IP   flag post
OwnsPwns private msg quote post Address this user
Sorry, got called out to work OT last night and wasn't in front of a computer. I have a few places in my gym i could probably attempt them. Always looked like an easy way to hurt myself so I've been worried about trying them. I do have a seated leg curl machine, so I will switch out lunges for those and when I get some courage I'll try some glute ham raises. Thanks for the ideas.
Post 19 IP   flag post
340616 19 19
destitute