5/11/2011:

• Walk: 3.03 miles

Note: wanted to do something but didn't want to affect 5/12 squats

5/12/2011:

• Stretching: Whole body
• Squats: 45 X 10, 135 X 10, 185 X 10, 225 X 5, 235 X 5, 255 X 5
• Assisted GHRs: BW X 5, BW X 2 X 10
• Angled leg press: 180 X 3 X 15
• Incline sit-ups: 25 X 15, 25 X 11, BW X 13, BW X 10
• Conditioning training: HIIT on indoor track -- 1.36 mi in 20.10 min

Notes:

• Second workout on 5/3/1 training program
• Squats felt great. I felt I was really spreading the floor with my feet. Well below parallel from beginning through final rep of final set.
• It's been a while since I last did GHRs, so they were pretty tough. Looks like a good opportunity for improvement.
• My gym does not have a glute-ham bench, but I was able to do them just fine on a sit-up bench.
• I'm sure some one-inch (ROM) wonders were snickering at my low weight leg presses, but mine were knee to chest.

so slight changes in macro breakdown and timing of meals can result in an extremely wide range of caloric intakes that result in maintenance. i don't believe that.

TE,

5 reps on the last set in your first week is a bit low. Did you misunderstand and not go all out on the last set, or were 5 reps all you could do? If so you prob should set the training max a little lower, since you'll be crushed in week 2 and 3.

If you're interested, I made a pretty fancy schmany google spreadsheet for 5/3/1.

You're making a specific long term conclusion to a general and unspecific statement. Not believing me is fine though. This is definitely not a forum I would expect to get any clients. I'm just throwing in my two cents.

In fairness, I don't think Dmunnee is saying that. That would be like saying someone in final caloric balance (i.e., metabolic rate at final level) could consume a wide range of caloric intakes via slight changes in macro breakdown and stay at maintenance.

Rather, I think he's saying that someone currently maintaining at 2200 kcal/day but who ought to be at some higher value may be able to get closer to the higher value sooner via said macro changes.

I don't know if that can be done. I'm far from the expert on that and am certainly interested in hearing more.

Thanks for taking a look at my log and evaluating my 5/3/1 approach. Much appreciated.

Yes, I definitely understand the idea that the last set of the primary lift is the one that counts. I trained with the Westside method for quite a while and that's key there as well (5/3/1 is clearly based on Westside, and Wendler is not shy about saying so). In fact, that's why I was careful in evaluating my training goals before starting 5/3/1.

255 X 5 ATG was my max. Hopefully that will improve, but that's where I am today.

For calculations, I used 285 lb as my 90% max single. That meant 245 lb X 5 for my final set yesterday. As the goal is to get a max quintuple, rather than either getting 245 X 7 as the final set or going for 245 X 5 and then adding an additional set, I went up to 255 for the five-rep maximal effort set.

My calculated week 2 final squat set is 255 X 3 (90% of my 90% max single). As I know I can get five, I'll bump that up. My calculated week three final set is 275 X 1.

Does that all sound consistent with the program, or am I missing something?

Thanks. I (unfortunately) already made a spreadsheet for this. I wish I'd found yours first.

sort of. Certain macro nutrient breakdowns will work better than others, and certain people will work better with specific breakdowns while other people may not. The reader's digest version is that high fat diets can work, low fat diets can work, high carb diets can work, low carb diets can work. No fat diets and no carb diets do not work. The X factor is trying to find what works for you based on what you like to eat, and stick with it. Switching it up wreaks havoc on your intestinal tract and metabolism.

getting closer to a higher caloric value is more about total calories than macro nutrient breakdown. For TE specifically, I'd re-evaluate your total energy expenditure based on current weight/bf/physical activity level, and how quickly to increase depends on how big a difference there is between how many calories you should be eating and how many you eat currently.

If you notice I never use the term "maintenance", because it's a junk marketing term used by fad diet authors. Either you're eating enough or you aren't, and "maintenance" has no real ADA definition.

Thanks Dmunnee.

I understand that you need to see your clients in person to provide optimal plans, of course. Fully recognizing that we've not done that but that I've posted all my info on weight, physical activity, total calories, and macro breakdown, does that lead to any generic recommendations, or is this a situation where you'd just require specific tests and info beyond that? You mentioned food logs. Do you think specific foods are key here over and above macro breakdowns?

As for current BF%, I have a Tanita scale, a mirror, and a tape measure. I've been using 15% for calculations. I'm not sure how useful it will be, but I have a video at www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGZ0ZqBMJGA that may help in judging that. It's just a video of me talking, so it may be useless for that purpose.

[Everyone: please don't comment on the contents of the linked video ITT. Thanks. If you have a comment, post it here.]

The bolded isn't exactly correct. The goal is to get as many reps as you can with the weight you calculate. So 85% of 285 = 242.5 (feel free to round up) should be the weight of your final workset. And you should get as many reps as you can with that weight, leaving one in the tank (I could never do that, heh).

The program is a bit badly named imo, since it's so easy to think you should get 5 reps on week 1, 3 on week 2 etc. Wendler clearly states that you should go for max reps though.

No dis on the weight you're lifting btw. That would be weird, considering our squats are pretty much the same

Also, I should mention that I'm not uncomfortable on 2200 kcal/day. It's not like I spend my day fighting temptation and hunger pangs. Still, I'd certainly like it to be higher.

True enough. I use the term loosely to indicate that I'm not actively seeking to change my bodyweight. I'm not in maintenance mode overall, of course, as I am seeking to increase lean body mass, decrease fat percentage, and increase strength.

Thanks for the clarification. I was unclear if Wendler meant to use more weight for five or to get more reps with the prescribed weight. At least I knew he didn't mean to quit at five.

Next week's will be interesting. Not sure if I should stick to 255 for the final set, given that I'll get five or six of them, or if I should plug in a higher max and go for a 265 triple. After all, I don't really know my 1 rep max.

Speaking of rounding, I set my spreadsheet to calculate the weights required, then to round that value down to the second digit to the left of the decimal, and then to add five to that value. That way, I'm not grabbing 2.5s for any of these lifts. For example, 242.5 would get rounded down to 240, to which five would then be added, yielding 245 lb. The formula is: =(ROUNDDOWN(0.85*E$3,-1))+5, where cell E$3 is the 90% max and where the formula result here is 85% of the 90% max.

I don't feel as bad now.

Stick with 255 imo, that's the way Wendler meant for it to work, re: stick with prescribed weight for more reps. Your rounding is prob fine. I used the Ceiling function with a 2.5 variable, 5 would work for lbs if you're willing to use 2.5 weights I think.

I do weigh around 25 lbs less than you tho

your answers are just terribly vague. i'll try more questions.

1a. i asked a form of this earlier, i'll reword. can you give an example of how someone might make his body require only 55% (2200 vs. 4000) of his theoretical caloric intake? please don't answer "it depends" because you have free reign to describe any factor involved.

1b. what things can be manipulated other than macronutrient breakdown and nutrient timing in an effort to get this person back to eating 1800 more calories daily but also not gaining weight?

2. why does the calculation you've given in this thread vary so drastically with both the harris-benedict and the mifflin-st jeor equations?

Thanks. Still, if I can five-rep 255, I wonder if I've not underestimated my one-rep max. http://www.timinvermont.com/fitness/orm.htm calculates it at 340 lb, or 306 lb @90%. When I use a more conservative 295 lb in the spreadsheet, I don't wind up with anything I cannot lift.

I don't want to tweak the program to match what I happen to be training with, but I don't wish to underdo it either. I guess I'll a better idea in a couple of weeks when I take a shot at a single rep attempt.

I have work to do.

my generic recommendation would be to add a 50-100 calorie snack/day for 1-2 weeks, however I hesitate to give any specific recommendations since I don't know the full story and wouldn't want to give you incorrect information. If you were my client right now, I'd have you do a 7 day food log including your exercise/nutrient timing and water, and have you get a CBC from your doctor for me to look over. The food log is important to see your micro nutrient breakdown in case you are deficient in anything (most food labels don't list things like magnesium/chromium/iron/zinc). That's after you filled out the three page initial client questionnaire and state of readiness page. From what I see you may be one of the very few people in H&F in a state of readiness that I would consider taking on. I hope that gives you an idea of just how much information is required to do things properly.

I've never seen a body weight scale yet that gives accurate bf calcs. There is simply too much variance in your hydration level, and how wet your feet are to contact the area. Bio-electrical impedance is just too inaccurate. Since you have a tape measure, try this. I've done that along side my skin calipers, and it's been accurate within 2% each time so I'm impressed. The only thing is you have to be COMPLETELY honest with your height, and not unconsciously suck your belly in when you measure your waist. I know on the site it says "hips", but you need to measure the widest part of your waist. On men it's typically an inch below your navel, on women it's typically just above the greater trocanter of your femur.

I hope that answers your questions. I realize I am vague with a lot of answers, but being specific without full knowledge of a client will cause inaccuracies and people will use it as discrediting tactics.