5x5 for noobs?

>>39994903

If you have never lifted before and are a true novice, 3x5 > 5x5. You'll get just as strong just as fast and stall later with 3x5 than 5x5. 5x5 has its place, but it's not for novices.

Anything will work for beginners. It is just that with most 5x5 programs progression is clearly laid out which is good for beginners since they don't have that bit of knowledge for themselves.

>>39994903

5x5 and 3x5 is a meme.

go 4x8, stall out, then 3x8 cause you'll be doing 2 or 3 warm up sets by that time.

don't GOMAD either, or you'll turn into a fatass

>>39994977

>T. Broscientist

>>39994926
You could not be more wrong. You could try but you wouldn't succeed.
5x5 is ideal for true novices until linear progression stops and then switching to 3x5 to keep it going

>>39994977
"5x5 and 3x5 is a meme" is a meme.
But I'm sure pushing babyweight will get you big :^)

for a novice it doesn't really matter

though you will stall sooner trying to complete the 5x5 than the 3x5. for example in SL you end up going down to 3x5 eventually once you deload enough

File: Volume-Vs-Training-Effect.jpg (26KB, 477x291px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 477x291px

>>39995024

The reason why they're novices is because anything will work for them. 3x5 is enough volume to illicit a response, 5x5 is more than enough. The longer you train the more volume you need to progress. Once linear progression has stopped that's when stuff like 5x5 through VD on TM becomes necessary. Until then 5x5 is beyond the optimal amount of training volume for a novice.

>>39995039
>Arguing between doing 80/85% of your 1RM

8 reps is king. More hypertrophy, negligible difference in strength gain, less chance of injury...

Run 5x5 until it gets too hard, then switch to 3x5. At that point you should probably be knowledgeable enough to have a baseline idea of what you should be doing, like what kind of accessories to add.

File: Rep-Ranges.png (42KB, 1008x1008px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1008x1008px

>>39995094

You're also wrong.

>>39995120
from what it seems pushing the most weight you can with the fewest reps (up to 5x5) leads to the most strength and there is zero difference in hypertrophy in any of the sets.

>>39995199
>from what it seems pushing the most weight you can with the fewest reps (up to 5x5) leads to the most strength and there is zero difference in hypertrophy in any of the sets.

BRB someone GOMADs 3x5 at a test facility
and gains 30" in his waist
>Most hypertrohpy at 3x5

You ever seen someone look fit at 3x5?

>>39995094
>8 reps is king
5 reps is god and what's a king to that?
More strenght, negligible difference in hypertrophy, less chance of lifting bitch weight and being a pussy

so reps don't mean shit as long as it doesn't turn into cardio?

>>39995199
>>39995240

Basically as you get more advanced maximizing hypertrophy involves maximizing frequency and weekly volume. To get as big and as strong as possible it's better to work all muscle groups 3-4 times per week and have the maximum number of challenging sets across all rep ranges during the week. You can change it from week to week but by that point you should be informed enough to figure that on your own.

You're going to grow the most and get comparatively the strongest as a novice, and then it doesn't really matter what you do.

>>39995251
>5 reps is god and what's a king to that?

go back to the hood jayz or kayne.

The 5x5 is based on a few things. First is technique. If u got that, go on with ANY program. Even 30 reps will work for a beginer.

I do 4x8, sometimes 5x8.

I think on the compound moves, just do 1 or 2 low rep / high weight sets out of the 4 or 5 exercises. So 4 to 5 reps heavy.

I'm doing this on a cut.

>>39994926
Just started lifting ive been doing 1x15 is this the same? I seem to top out just at 15