Rival Training Programs

Training Q&A [Moderated]
1

Hello all!

I had a general question about an competitor training programs. I wasn’t sure if posting it to the forums would be appropriate or not, like the whole 5/3/1 debate and if it’s a “good” program.

I was really just interested to hear if anyone at Barbell Medicine had any professional opinions on other training programs. For example, Westside Conjugate (even though some critics claim it is based on the concurrent method), the Cube Method, Swede Burns 5th set, etc. In your professional opinions, would any of these measure up to say, your templates? I suppose the criteria would not be based on personal experience, but on if the program was intelligently made (recovery process, amount of correct stress induced for strength/muscle hypertrophy, strong/weak correlation of exercises selected to increase 1RM in desired lift, etc) and if the program is based on scientific principles or just “broscience.”

I am open to all opinions on any programs that you think may rival your templates. I obviously have a strong bias towards your templates, but I am interested in the Westside method, because it is based on intensity of main movements and volume work for assistance exercises. The wide variation I have a slight problem with, but it’s all in good criticism.

All in all, do you feel that there are any programs out there that can compete with how yours are structured?

As always, thank you for all that you have put out. I look forward to more templates, more content, and to hopefully see Barbell Medicine’s name as a leader in the health/fitness industry one day.

Thanks,
Particular_Perkins

2

All in all, do you feel that there are any programs out there that can compete with how yours are structured?

I’m not sure what this means, to be honest.

We like our programs. But of course, there are lots and lots and lots of ways to train with varying degrees of productivity, particularly over the long term, and people have been finding ways to make progress in the gym for a long time before we ever existed.

To the extent a program follows the basic “foundational principles” that have been discussed at length elsewhere (by us and others), it will likely provide benefit. But in the context of our “training sensitivity” paradigm, nearly any program can work for someone (as evidenced by testimonials for all kinds of silly-looking things), while any program (including those purported to “work every single time they are ever done”) can also fail in the setting of a poor responder to training.

With all that said, it’s not a particularly good use of our time to pick apart and rank “competitor programs”.

1 Like