Was supposed to do 5 reps for squat today on my 5/3/1 but was

>>39303537
Was it 3×4 or 5,5,4?

>>39303537
This is my main gripe with this program. Sure, plus sets are a great way to take advantage of good days but there is absolutely no way to downregulate if you're having a shitty day. I say just carry on with the cycle, and if at least 2 out of 3 of your training weeks turn out to be shit, just reduce your training max next cycle.

>>39303578

It was 5, 5, 4. The 2 sets before (lighter) were easy to do 5 reps, and then on the heaviest I could only do 4 reps.

>>39303584

Thanks. I will go forward to my 3 reps one next week and see what happens.

Wendler used to do Five steps forward Three steps back. Where you'd increase weight five cycles then drop back to the weight three cycles ago and try to crush your rep PRs.

He's now recommending, Testing maxs then doing two cycles of 5'sPro(instead of 531 you just do the three work sets with 5 reps on all three weeks), deload then do one cycle of 531 PR setting. After the three cycles you retest.

It's all supposed to be laid out in his now book that's coming out soon.

>>39303680
Sound like you just had a bad day don't sweat it.

>>39303584

Generally speaking, hitting below prescribed reps on the AMRAP when training sub-maximally is indicative of an over-inflated training max.

This poster is correct OP, continue as normal; if you find you're not able to surpass your prescribed reps on your 3+ and/or 1+ day, your training max is incorrectly calculated. Also consider that if this becomes a pattern of missing 5+ weeks, but handling 3+ and 1+ microcycles, your work capacity needs some work.

>>39304985
>>39303584
>>39303537

I'd just carry on with the cycle. Odds are if you fail your 5s you might fail on your 1+, so be prepared for that. If that happens, subtract 10-5% and go at it again next cycle.

Submaximal Training is just that, you are not supposed to hit concentric failure.