What is better for strength and size: 5x5 or 3x5, last set AMRAP

10 reps at 80% then back off sets for 10x3

File: klokov.jpg (570KB, 788x697px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 788x697px

>>42010475
Show some respect

>>42010475
Periodized lifting for progressive improvement. Sets and reps will vary

>>42010496
No.

Volume

>>42010675
T. Brosplit advocator

>>42010865
>falling for SS
>never making it

pick two

>>42010475
if youre doing 3x5 right the fifth rep of the third set SHOULD be the final rep you can do, you idiot

>>42010939
Nope

>>42010475
Volume = total workload

If your max is 200 and you do 3x5 at 90%, your total volume is 2,700 lbs. If you do 5x5, at 80%, your total workload is 4,000 lbs. 5x5 is better volume work for hupertrophy. Since you would be handling heavier weights at 3x5, you would most likely have more neural adaption than hypertrophy, though at a point, that would stop and hypertrophy would occur

>>42010983
Though, if you're referring to stronglifts vs ss, you'll stop recovering from 5x5 at every session when you reach the middle beginner phase, and then will need to switch to 3x5 to keep linear progression going. Once you stall there, it's time to switch to a periodized routine (concurrent, linear, undulating) or something like Bulgarian light if you have the willpower

>>42010675
This. Don't believe the "low rep = strength" and "high reps = size" memes. Volume is all that matters for either.

>>42011002
Volume is very important, but working in weights 95-100% of your 1RM prompts more neural adaption than volume training. The max effort method cannot be discredited in being crucial for strength gains

>>42010996
He said last set AMRAP. It's GSLP, not SS.
>>42010475
Both are equally good. 5x5 is marginally better because of the extra volume but will force more frequent deloads so equal in the long run. But, 3x5+ is better in the sense that it lets you take advantage of good days and doesn't punish you on bad days. So 3x5 wins in fatigue management.
>>42010939
>SHOULD
Keyword, we are not robots. Even if your sleep and diet are on point there are a million other exogenous factors that affect performance
>>42010983
Dude, no, not how it works. Gains are not a linear function of volume accumulated. Diminishing returns. The 4th and 5th sets give you way less gains than the first rwo

>>42010475
5x5
but 8-5-2 power-building periodization is best (assuming you're intermediate NOT novice).

>>42011136
5x5 is too much to progress beyond complete newbie stage in my experience

I plateaued a lot, switched to gslp 3x5+ and havent plateaued since

>>42011155
>complete newbie stage
I hope you didn't do something stupid like StrongLifts as a newbie, anon.
That said, 5x5 texas method-type programs are hard to recover from and only dedicated lifters in their teens to late twenties can really make great use of them. So it's easy to see why you had more success by switching.

>>42010865
Not even. Today i did hang cleans, dips and prowler lel.