Texas Method Results

>>42197098
TM really isn't that great. The volume for upper body is abysmal, and it quickly turns into a cycle of fatigue, deload, minor gains, fatigue again. Even Rippletits doesn't promote this routine anymore. Pick something better

File: beant.jpg (32KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 800x800px

Bump

>>42197166
Which intermediate program worked for you?

>>42197196
I always liked Candito's routines. You could pick one of his linear routines, or his 6 week one, or you could go back and forth between them as they're designed that way. Personally, I prefer the 6 week one because it changes every week so it doesnt get stale, and it yields consistent strength gains

>>42197254
Cool, I'll look into those. At what point did you jump from a beginner routine to Candito?

>>42197166
>Pick something better
Can you recommend a better 3/week routine?

>>42197166
Took the words right out of my post, this guy is absolutely right

Modified versions of TM are fine.
Just don't do the vanilla, upper presses will stall first never to recover.
TM in general is pretty good for squat tho.
And driving up your squat consistently will carry over to deadlift anyway

>>42197352
Can't quite remember, that was a while ago. If I were to guess I'd say after 6 months of GSLP

>>42197352
You jump from a beginner LP routine to an intermediate routine when you're not a novice anymore.

Definition of no longer a novice : when you can't add weight to the bar at each session anymore.

>>42197445
I'm familiar with the criteria for getting on and intermediate routine. I was trying to ask the other poster what milestones he'd accomplished when linear progression was no longer possible for him (4/3/2/1, for example)

File: conan.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>42197426
Greyskull? I was under the impression that it was a meme.

>>42197521
It worked okay with me, wouldve been better if i knew what i was doing at the time. It's just a simple linear progression routine based on compound movements, really not much different from other novice routines. Whats memey about that?

>>42197503
Again, I can't really remember what numbers I was lifting before switching. I know that they were lower than the average, or at least lower than what you read on /fit/ after months of linear progression. But I started doing Candito's routines, worked out my form, and got a better handle on diet and my numbers got more respectable quickly after that

>>42197656
I was under the impression that it lacked volume and that it didn't require enough squats but it looks like I'm misremembering or got bad advice once or both.

File: cowoby-method-teaser.png (450KB, 878x624px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 878x624px

>>42197098

>>42197503
Don't be too concerned about that. Each person will have to switch at different numbers depending on various factors.
Also 1/2/3/4 is not proportionate and you'll hardly be on those numbers all at the same time .

>>42197098
TM started as an lazier version of Bill Starr's 5x5, but somehow ended up requiring more time in the gym to give the same result.

So go for Starr's 5x5, or madcow if you want more upper-body volume.

>>42197369
bump