Texas method bad rep

[Murelli]

My dislike of TM started well before the first Rippening and any other issues with Rip.

As presented in PPST, it’s simply not optimal. Andy Baker has written articles and responses about this. I won’t speak for Andy, but what he provides in his own versions of TM is a significant increase in overall upper body volume and pulling volume. His Barbell club, garage gym warrior, and whatever other programs are pretty consistent about this.

Hanley was exactly right about his statement on TM being a peaking program. In fact, if you read the backstory on it, you’ll see that Pendlay was training dudes on some other program, and told them that if they hit a new 5RM, they could end the session. This seems to have worked for a while, and became a “program”. Since the details aren’t available, I’d guess this worked for 8-12 weeks, on some fairly talented athletes with direct coaching. Basically, it doesn’t extrapolate well. HLM probably extrapolates better since Starr developed it as a football s&c coach for a bit more realistic population.

TL:DR - TM is a peaking program for SSLP?

[mgil]

My dislike of TM started well before the first Rippening and any other issues with Rip.

As presented in PPST, it’s simply not optimal. Andy Baker has written articles and responses about this. I won’t speak for Andy, but what he provides in his own versions of TM is a significant increase in overall upper body volume and pulling volume. His Barbell club, garage gym warrior, and whatever other programs are pretty consistent about this.

Hanley was exactly right about his statement on TM being a peaking program. In fact, if you read the backstory on it, you’ll see that Pendlay was training dudes on some other program, and told them that if they hit a new 5RM, they could end the session. This seems to have worked for a while, and became a “program”. Since the details aren’t available, I’d guess this worked for 8-12 weeks, on some fairly talented athletes with direct coaching. Basically, it doesn’t extrapolate well. HLM probably extrapolates better since Starr developed it as a football s&c coach for a bit more realistic population.

TL:DR - TM is a peaking program for SSLP?

Or HLM.

Think about in in terms of running HLM. The H day is nearly identical to VD. Instead of 25 squats at 5x5 @80%, you could set a new 5RM and gtfo of the gym. If you hit this, then you’re recovering from less volume and heading into H day with a bit more recovery. This would work for a while until the lifter has leveraged all of the hypertrophy gains made on the prior programming.

[Murelli]

My dislike of TM started well before the first Rippening and any other issues with Rip.

As presented in PPST, it’s simply not optimal. Andy Baker has written articles and responses about this. I won’t speak for Andy, but what he provides in his own versions of TM is a significant increase in overall upper body volume and pulling volume. His Barbell club, garage gym warrior, and whatever other programs are pretty consistent about this.

Hanley was exactly right about his statement on TM being a peaking program. In fact, if you read the backstory on it, you’ll see that Pendlay was training dudes on some other program, and told them that if they hit a new 5RM, they could end the session. This seems to have worked for a while, and became a “program”. Since the details aren’t available, I’d guess this worked for 8-12 weeks, on some fairly talented athletes with direct coaching. Basically, it doesn’t extrapolate well. HLM probably extrapolates better since Starr developed it as a football s&c coach for a bit more realistic population.

TL:DR - TM is a peaking program for SSLP?

Or HLM.

Think about in in terms of running HLM. The H day is nearly identical to VD. Instead of 25 squats at 5x5 @80%, you could set a new 5RM and gtfo of the gym. If you hit this, then you’re recovering from less volume and heading into H day with a bit more recovery. This would work for a while until the lifter has leveraged all of the hypertrophy gains made on the prior programming.

What I meant was more connected to the blunt recommendation of running TM after you've finished LP, but that seems good too. It's pretty much inline with what Baker wrote in his latest article.

[mgil]

My dislike of TM started well before the first Rippening and any other issues with Rip.

As presented in PPST, it’s simply not optimal. Andy Baker has written articles and responses about this. I won’t speak for Andy, but what he provides in his own versions of TM is a significant increase in overall upper body volume and pulling volume. His Barbell club, garage gym warrior, and whatever other programs are pretty consistent about this.

Hanley was exactly right about his statement on TM being a peaking program. In fact, if you read the backstory on it, you’ll see that Pendlay was training dudes on some other program, and told them that if they hit a new 5RM, they could end the session. This seems to have worked for a while, and became a “program”. Since the details aren’t available, I’d guess this worked for 8-12 weeks, on some fairly talented athletes with direct coaching. Basically, it doesn’t extrapolate well. HLM probably extrapolates better since Starr developed it as a football s&c coach for a bit more realistic population.

TL:DR - TM is a peaking program for SSLP?

Or HLM.

Think about in in terms of running HLM. The H day is nearly identical to VD. Instead of 25 squats at 5x5 @80%, you could set a new 5RM and gtfo of the gym. If you hit this, then you’re recovering from less volume and heading into H day with a bit more recovery. This would work for a while until the lifter has leveraged all of the hypertrophy gains made on the prior programming.

What I meant was more connected to the blunt recommendation of running TM after you've finished LP, but that seems good too. It's pretty much inline with what Baker wrote in his latest article.

LP kinda works into TM “okay” if you run it out with “advanced novice” (HLM light) at the end of the LP.

That’s a good article. I hadn’t seen it and thanks for posting it. With some RPE integration, anyone could take that outline he wrote and build up a solid 24 week plan.

[Chebass88]

I did the classic Texas method in fall of 2012 (the one Rippetoe published on T-nation), and the TM for Olympic Lifting in fall of 2014. I did the classic version for about 12 weeks, and the OLY variant for ~9 weeks (IIRC - WGAF at this point, since I no longer OLY lift...)

I made some decent progress on classic TM, and increased my 5RMs on every lift. I think the biggest reasons for this were that I had never lifted at that weekly intensity before, nor had I clearly established 5RMs in all the lifts. I stopped doing TM for a few reasons - I didn't want to squat more than once per week, and I wanted to cut down my session time. Spending 40 minutes of rest time PER LIFT was a massive waste of time, IMO. I didn't notice my bench, press, or deadlift decreasing on TM, but then again, I did not run the program long enough to observe stagnation.

TM for OLY lifting was okay. IMO, it is not the best Olympic lifting program, **especially** if your time would be best spent learning and practicing the lifts. Deadlifting in 500s wasn't worth a shit when my snatch was in the mid-100s, and my C&J was in the low 200s. Instead of cycling intensity, I began doing the same approach with OLY lifts I now use for everything else - 8 sets of doubles, adding a rep to make them 8 triples. I stopped doing the TM OLY program because I got a copy of Greg Everett's OLY lifting book, and wanted to put more effort into the snatch and C&J. I didn't stagnate in this one either, as I didn't run it long enough. I've subsequently cut out the OLY lifts, as a 700lb deadlift is more desirable than a low-200s snatch.

From my experience since I left Texas Method, I probably would not recommend it to anyone, though this is more dependent on changes in training approach than whether it is "bad" or not. I don't think it is necessary to squat thrice weekly, nor is it good to deadlift just a single set of five, even if it IS a new 5RM. I can "get away" with less squatting due to increasing the volume of deadlifts.

I like the idea of "If you can set a new maximum, you get to go home". I've done this quite often, and it is a nice opportunity to set a new rep max. It isn't a technique that should be done all the time, but is a nice way to mix it up for fun.

[LexAnderson]

I myself have never ran TM, and that has been for several reasons. The most important is the amount of time that it will take to complete a session with extended rest periods. I've been working one of Andy Baker's HLM programs for powerlifting and it have done wonders for me. Perfect amount of volume, intensity and time it takes to complete.

[cwd]

I can see how "TM == peaking version of HLM" makes a lot of sense.
They are basically the same thing except that TM drops the medium day volume in favor of a PR attempt on each lift.

I've been running HLM with minor variations for 32 weeks. So long as I don't need to peak for a meet (none planned) and I keep making slow progress, is there any reason to ever change programs?

[Hanley]

I've been running HLM with minor variations for 32 weeks. So long as I don't need to peak for a meet (none planned) and I keep making slow progress, is there any reason to ever change programs?

I've kept tabs on your approach. I think it's excellent.

[cwd]

I've been running HLM with minor variations for 32 weeks. So long as I don't need to peak for a meet (none planned) and I keep making slow progress, is there any reason to ever change programs?

I've kept tabs on your approach. I think it's excellent.

Gosh, thanks! <insert Goofy gif here, except I didn't find one>

[EricK]

I've been running HLM with minor variations for 32 weeks. So long as I don't need to peak for a meet (none planned) and I keep making slow progress, is there any reason to ever change programs?

I've kept tabs on your approach. I think it's excellent.

Gosh, thanks!

[Mahendra]

When I finished SSLP, I thought that TM was the next logical step. A few SS coaches tried to tell me it wouldn't work for me because I didn't fit the demographic of being a late teen/early 20 year old with great recovery. They said it was "too advanced".

Naturally, I did it anyway because apparently I'm a child and I do what people tell me not to do. Didn't work very well...

Had people came out and said "TM sucks" rather than "it's too advanced", I likely wouldn't have wasted that time

[tdood]

80% for 5x5, with a 5rm later in the week will simply destroy me.
I literally tore both my patellar tendons doing this. It has been a very long process to recover, and permanently lowered my genetic ceiling.

[perman]

80% for 5x5, with a 5rm later in the week will simply destroy me.
I literally tore both my patellar tendons doing this. It has been a very long process to recover, and permanently lowered my genetic ceiling.

Well, to play devil's advocate, if you trust Greg Nuckol's article on powerlifting injuries, then injuries are random events that can't be traced to any particular training methodology. The only 3 factors that correlated significantly to injury rates according to the article was:
1) Absolute strength levels (stronger people had a higher probability of getting injured)
2) Training length (more years trained increases the probability of getting injured, which makes sense considering 1)
3) Gender (men get hurt more, connection to factor 1 again)

Training methodology did not correlate measurably, meaning high volume/low intensity or low volume/high intensity did not seem to matter much.

While I think you can blame TM for being a bad program, I don't think you can claim 5x5 @ 80% is demonstrably much more unsafe or injury inducing than other training methodologies.

[tdood]

80% for 5x5, with a 5rm later in the week will simply destroy me.
I literally tore both my patellar tendons doing this. It has been a very long process to recover, and permanently lowered my genetic ceiling.

Well, to play devil's advocate, if you trust Greg Nuckol's article on powerlifting injuries, then injuries are random events that can't be traced to any particular training methodology. The only 3 factors that correlated significantly to injury rates according to the article was:
1) Absolute strength levels (stronger people had a higher probability of getting injured)
2) Training length (more years trained increases the probability of getting injured, which makes sense considering 1)
3) Gender (men get hurt more, connection to factor 1 again)

Training methodology did not correlate measurably, meaning high volume/low intensity or low volume/high intensity did not seem to matter much.

While I think you can blame TM for being a bad program, I don't think you can claim 5x5 @ 80% is demonstrably much more unsafe or injury inducing than other training methodologies.

Squatting to @10 twice a week while ignoring worsening chronic pain while taking my "vitamin i" lead to my injuries.

[perman]

Squatting to @10 twice a week while ignoring worsening chronic pain while taking my "vitamin i" lead to my injuries.

Sure, but squatting to more sets @8 while ignoring worsening chronic pain could probably do it too is my point. What's "vitamin i"?

[TimK]

What's "vitamin i"?

Ibuprofen

[Manveer]

if you trust Greg Nuckol's article on powerlifting injuries,

^Key point. Crushing yourself with volume can lead to tendinopathy (ask me how I know).

[perman]

if you trust Greg Nuckol's article on powerlifting injuries,

^Key point. Crushing yourself with volume can lead to tendinopathy (ask me how I know).

How do you know?

[Manveer]

How do you know?

Personal experience getting crushed by volume...

[perman]

How do you know?

Personal experience getting crushed by volume...

Sure, I reckon you could get crushed by intensity too though, or frequency. Hard to decouple volume/frequency/intensity, but training hard enough to cause adaptation is probably training that can cause injury too, no matter which of the 3 attributes your program is high in... Not that I'm claiming they are equally safe/unsafe.