Better is better. Staying busy is easy, but doing and accomplishing something meaningful is far more difficult.

Not a day goes by when someone doesn’t ask me a question along those lines. Athletes, friends, family – doesn’t matter. “What do you think of gizmo X?” “Is it OK to eat Y before bed?” “Which diet is best?”

As I’ve repeatedly stated – you must establish context. Adjectives are meaningless without context. Good, bad, best, worst, etc. all must fit the context provided. Distance running? Great for distance runners, not so much for football players. Powerlifting? Great for powerlifters, not so great for distance runners, OK (though not optimal) for many other athletes. Pizza and cookies? If it fits in your caloric allotment, go ahead.

It’s why I was so thorough a few days ago in pointing out that the program I outlined was one I use for certain athletes at certain times of year – others could certainly benefit, but they don’t have the same needs, training backgrounds, etc. Something else would probably work better. So to give blanket recommendations about any single exercise/program/food/diet/whatever, if futile without first establishing what it is being used for.

In yesterday’s post, I outlined a very small part of one particular template I use with some athletes. The goal is, quite simply to get athletes stronger. It does not, however, necessarily mean the implicit goal is to improve their squat, bench, deadlift, or any other specific lift. Hang with me here.

The goal of auxiliary training for non-iron athletes (powerlifters and weightlifters) is merely to improve sport results. Many times, this will include the use of common barbell exercises, such as squats, bench press, deadlifts, and the Olympic lifts and their variations, just to name a few. These exercises, and their method of execution, are “tools of the trade” so to speak – they are not the final product. Unfortunately, the mistake many coaches make is simply looking for the numbers in specific lifts to go up.

For demonstration’s sake, let’s use the squat. The motor ability is strength in the muscles of the legs and hips as well as General Organism Strength – the overall output capability of the nervous system; the skill is the squat (whichever variation is being tested). In some ways, the two cannot be separated – there’s going to be a fairly strong correlation. However, if I had an athlete only use the leg press to build up leg strength, and another (of comparable morphology, physiology, training history, etc.) build up leg strength via the squat, the second athlete would undoubtedly perform better on a squat test. Not necessarily because they are “stronger,” but because in addition to building up strength, they have been practicing the skill of squatting.

Note that I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing; simply realize that the final number we see is due to a confluence of factors, and even more importantly, it’s not necessarily vital to sporting outcome. In other words, revisiting the previous example, let’s say athlete 1 squatted 315, and athlete 2 squatted 365. We automatically assume athlete 2 is “stronger” and will perform better, right? Unfortunately, no. Obviously this will also depend on the sport in question, but the fact is, both athletes may be comparable in “strength” (because athlete 1 was still leg pressing), but this says nothing of other motor abilities such as speed, reactive-elastic ability, flexibility/mobility, or more importantly sport skill.

This also underscores the point that we may use a variety of exercises to accomplish goals. However, the idea of constant exercise rotation has a few drawbacks as well (which I mentioned a bit in a previous post).

1. Motor learning – a new exercise will have a learning curve, meaning that it cannot be loaded the same as an exercise that has been practiced frequently. While load is certainly not everything, it does have its benefits.

2. Soreness – with a new exercise will often come muscular soreness (the amount and duration depending on a number of things). This soreness, or what Charlie Francis termed “adaptation stiffness,” will cost training time, because the ensuing training (sport-specific and otherwise), will be hindered.

3. Time to learn – this one may not be a huge issue, though it certainly can be. If an athlete knows how the squat/hinge/press/pull patterns well, then moving from one variation to another should not take much teaching time. However, there may be nuances which require more time to teach and integrate, which again, takes up valuable training time. Because time is the one variable that everyone has an equal amount of, it is prudent (in my opinion) not to waste it on variables that may make little to no difference. As I’ve outlined in a previous post, exercises are but one variable that can be manipulated to induce the desired training effect.

 The take home is this – yes, there are skills which transfer well to the field/court/pool, but don’t get so caught up in the athlete’s ability to excel (or not) at these skills – it’s the end result, their performance, which is the final arbiter of success. Understand that a 10 pound jump in the bench press might just be because they got better at bench pressing, not because they actually improved their ability to produce force. Differentiate between the goal and the tools used to achieve it.

I thought I would post some specifics in regards to training, since everything else has been more on principles.

You’ll notice the title is “5/3/1 Inspired” instead of “5/3/1 Variation.”  Jim Wendler, the progenitor of the 5/3/1 program, has many variations of the 5/3/1 base program in his various books, many of which can be found in articles he’s written online. I’ve used the program in my own training as well as for some of my athletes, and it works extremely well. However, as with anything, I’m always tinkering to see if it can be improved in some way.

In Science and Practice of Strength Training by William Kraemer and Vladimir Zatsiorsky, it is noted that maximal muscle recruitment occurs at around 80% of maximum load (in larger muscle groups). Anything above that, and you are moreso training intramuscular coordination, rate coding, etc. – skill acquisition, essentially. And if your goal is to improve that movement specifically, that becomes very important.

However, for athletes, weight training is an addendum – that is, it is not the goal of training. It is used to enhance the effects of the more sport-specific work. Therefore, the goal of the coach must be to stimulate progress, while leaving plenty of adaptive reserves for the stuff that really counts.

So, I came up with what I believe to be a solid 5/3/1-esque program that covers these bases. I don’t call it a variation because I’m sure if you were to show it to Wendler, he wouldn’t say it is – and that is fine. However, I absolutely used it as the basis for this program.

The original program:

5 week – 65%x5, 75%x5, 85%x5+
3 week – 70%x3, 80%x3, 90%x3+
5/3/1 week – 75%x5, 85%x3, 95%x1+

All based off of 90% of maximum.

My changes:

5 week – 55%x5, 65%x5, 75%x5, 75%x5+
3 week – 60%x3, 70%x3, 80%x3, 80%x3+
5/3/1 week – 65%x5, 75%x3, 85%x1, 85%x1+

Again, based off roughly 90% (often I go even lower than that). I then progress the max roughly in accordance with Jim’s guidelines.

Now, it should also be noted that this is but a very small part of the whole program. I often use this as a basis for the “big lifts,” but frequency, assistance lifts, etc. all vary wildly.

In training, it often seems as though our best performances seem to “come out of nowhere” – not that we aren’t training for them, but they happen at unexpected times. Unfortunately, the body does not adapt linearly, which is where a lot of people get frustrated.

It would be great if everything happened in a straight line – we could plan accordingly, and know when the good things are about to happen. The reality is, improvement will come in fits and starts. There will be good days, really good days, bad days, really bad days, and a lot of average days.

All of this underscores the importance of repeatedly showing up – putting in the time and the work will often result in the performance you want. Certainly it helps to have a good plan in place to get you there, and is the backbone of success. But as has been said, a mediocre plan carried out with passion will always out-perform the perfect plan that doesn’t get done.