Bill Starr's 5x5 program

S

scientific muscle

New Member
I recently purchased Starr's "The strongest shall survive." Its a great book and I really like the simplicity of it. The basic program can be summed up in one short sentence: 5x5 ramping sets of power cleans, squats and bench, 3x/week with varying intensities.
Of course there is a ton more info. in there on exercise execution, advanced programs, assistance exercises, sleep, nutrition and stuff that relates to football, (its primarily a football strength training program.)

One thing I think may be beneficial for some is to try doing 'sets across' rather than the ramping sets to get more overall volume in. Th intensities vary during the week, so I think it wouldn't be too much to do sets across after proper warm-ups.

And of course another tweak would be to make it a more body-builderish routine and substitute rows for the cleans for extra lat and bicep development, especially if your gym doesn't allow power-cleans. (I know, I know this is what all the internet variations seem to do, and rippetoe hates it.)
Anyway, it seems like a solid program and especially for those who want overall strength and mass on a siomple program without doing a hundred different exercises.
Any thought or experiences out there with Starrs' 5x5?

p.s.- this book can be ordered through the Aasgaard Company, the same site as "Starting Strength' etc.
 
I'm surprised deads weren't among the exercises he chose as a foundation.

I'll probably get the book one day just for intrigue's sake but to be honest, I didn't think I would gain a whole lot from it what with all the up-to-date stuff I have. along with Rippetoe's free-weight lifting guides.

I am keen on getting into cleaning and pressing more though. I tried some tonight on a solid floor (in my kitchen!
wow.gif
) where I could try out my bumper plates properly for the first time. It was great but a bit noisy when I let the bar drop from full press height so decided not to freak out the neighbours and have another go in the day tomorrow.
biggrin.gif


My feeling now is that deads are too much for my lower back every week. Maybe that's why Star didn't incorporate them? So I'm going to alternate deads with either power cleans or Romanian DLs. I'd rather do the cleans than RDLs.
 
Nope, just clean, squat and bench every workout along with some leg extensions and leg curls (but I ignored that part
rock.gif
). Deadlifts are unecessary and dangerous in the football program according to Starr. He has assistance exercises for later, advanced programs but no deadlifts. Cleans make more sense since they build quick, explosive strength for a football player.
 
I'm hoping to win an auction for a bench and a set of bumper weights on ebay within the next couple days. I'll just give the bench to a good will or salvation army. Anyway, I'd really like to get into doing power cleans, I'm hoping they'd have some carry over to deadlifting. I did clean and press in the past, but it's difficult without bumper plates.

I think a program like this could be fun for a change. Not sure I could go a whole cycle without doing some deadlifts though.
 
Carryover? Yup, power cleans are basically a lightish deadlift followed by a hang-clean. Thus you can do them more frequently. Starr said that many trainees could deadlift a lot simply from doing clean-pulls and other pulling.
Also this program has probably produced more jacked guys than any other in the past three decades and hasn't really been improved upon much since then. That alone says something.
I like it because its so simple and I have always preferred basic routines which focus on doing lots of work with only a few exercises rather than vice-versa.
Plus many regard Starr as the greatest strength coach ever, so I regard this book as 'required' reading for strength lovers.
 
Awesome. I will be picking that book up in addition to Rippetoe's volumes. I usually peruse books at bookstores and I never see any of this stuff at even the big box retailers. Just the same fit for life type stuff with a random bodybuilding book thrown in.

With these really simple programs, isn't there a risk of strength imbalance developing? You said assitance lifts were included in the regimen.

With 5x5 program's and Westside I wonder how large the strength gains would be per week over things I have already tried. I am still dialing in Max-Stim and I am also preoccupied with job hunting but it seems my rate of strength gain is about what I got with HIT. That may be an apples and oranges comparison seeing as MS is 20 reps and all and HIT was 10. I'm just thinking out loud.

I like doing any loud lifts in the gym. All that noise scares people from bothering you. Gym management?....

...its easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
 
Well since these exercise are complex compounds that involve whole lots of muscle groups, I don't think there is any risk of developing strength imbalances.

People forget that the bench press is really a chest, shoulder, arm and more exercise, not just 'pecs'. And squats work the entire lower half of the body, etc.
Bodybuilder magazine mentality has everyone thinking in terms of isolating muscles, when in fact you only need a handful of barbell exercises to develop the majority of the entire musculature.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 06 2008,01:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well since these exercise are complex compounds that involve whole lots of muscle groups, I don't think there is any risk of developing strength imbalances.

People forget that the bench press is really a chest, shoulder, arm and more exercise, not just 'pecs'. And squats work the entire lower half of the body, etc.
Bodybuilder magazine mentality has everyone thinking in terms of isolating muscles, when in fact you only need a handful of barbell exercises to develop the majority of the entire musculature.</div>
Imho, this is only really true if you are talking about novices.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, the most muscular people are, by and large, not following this minimalist philosophy. I do not think this is a coincidence, and I am reluctant to credit genetics or steroids for this actuality.
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ Feb. 06 2008,06:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 06 2008,01:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well since these exercise are complex compounds that involve whole lots of muscle groups, I don't think there is any risk of developing strength imbalances.

People forget that the bench press is really a chest, shoulder, arm and more exercise, not just 'pecs'.  And squats work the entire lower half of the body, etc.
Bodybuilder magazine mentality has everyone thinking in terms of isolating muscles, when in fact you only need a handful of barbell exercises to develop the majority of the entire musculature.</div>
Imho, this is only really true if you are talking about novices.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, the most muscular people are, by and large, not following this minimalist philosophy.  I do not think this is a coincidence, and I am reluctant to credit genetics or steroids for this actuality.</div>
The other thing to bear in mind is time available to train. I am sure that the 'biggest' guys out there are generally spending a lot more time in the gym than most folks could afford as well as having superior genetics for lean body mass (and roiding). If they are not then what are they doing Mikey?

What a minimal set of compounds will accomplish (from among deads/cleans, squats, bench/dips, rows/chins, presses) is more bang for buck, as we have said all along. It's not rocket science. I think it will get a person closer to their goals more quickly than spending valuable time on 'light' isos. If they then have the time to throw in a selective pile of other stuff (once they have trained simply for a year or so) then all well and good.

Of course, in my book, lifters like Andy Bolton are still huge even though they don't seem to spend a lot of time on ancillary work to their main lifts. He eats a lot of chocolate though!
tounge.gif
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(Lol @ Feb. 06 2008,06:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Of course, in my book, lifters like Andy Bolton are still huge even though they don't seem to spend a lot of time on ancillary work to their main lifts. He eats a lot of chocolate though!</div>
Well, duh! Chocolate is nature's most nearly perfect food for bulking -- next to Pepsi...
smile.gif
 
<div>
(TunnelRat @ Feb. 06 2008,08:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Lol @ Feb. 06 2008,06:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Of course, in my book, lifters like Andy Bolton are still huge even though they don't seem to spend a lot of time on ancillary work to their main lifts. He eats a lot of chocolate though!</div>
Well, duh! Chocolate is nature's most nearly perfect food for bulking -- next to Pepsi...
smile.gif
</div>
and peanut butter!

PeanutButterBrian.jpg
 
what do you mean by &quot;sets across&quot;?
Multiple sets at higher weights?
I am doing the madcow 5x5 which I believe uses a similar progression to starr's program. Usually only the last 2 sets of a given exercise are challenging. I have wondered if I would benefit from an extra set or two of the top weight, or of the second from top weight.
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ Feb. 06 2008,01:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 06 2008,01:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well since these exercise are complex compounds that involve whole lots of muscle groups, I don't think there is any risk of developing strength imbalances.

People forget that the bench press is really a chest, shoulder, arm and more exercise, not just 'pecs'.  And squats work the entire lower half of the body, etc.
Bodybuilder magazine mentality has everyone thinking in terms of isolating muscles, when in fact you only need a handful of barbell exercises to develop the majority of the entire musculature.</div>
Imho, this is only really true if you are talking about novices.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, the most muscular people are, by and large, not following this minimalist philosophy.  I do not think this is a coincidence, and I am reluctant to credit genetics or steroids for this actuality.</div>
Well if you mean this program is not well-suited for advanced bodybuilders then I agree. They already have a foundation of mass and need direct work for delts, arms, calves, abs, etc.
But for your average lifter, who is looking for 20-30 pounds on his frame and getting his squat above 400, and bench above 300, while building bigger chest and thighs, etc. I think something like this is PERFECT. The average lifter does way too much foo-foo stuff and imho would be much better off doing only basic compounds for the first couple of years.

Of course not everyone will agree with this, but I think Starrs' program speaks for itself with its decades of results and universal praise from other coaches.
 
<div>
(SweetDaddyPatty @ Feb. 06 2008,11:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">what do you mean by &quot;sets across&quot;?
Multiple sets at higher weights?
I am doing the madcow 5x5 which I believe uses a similar progression to starr's program.  Usually only the last 2 sets of a given exercise are challenging.  I have wondered if I would benefit from an extra set or two of the top weight, or of the second from top weight.</div>
Sets across: all sets done with the same load. (good for getting volume)
vs.
Ramping sets: each set heavier than the previous up to a top set. (good for getting a top performance on the last set)

Starr set it up with ramping sets as his goal was top athletic performance. I think sets across might be better for hypertrophy purposes due to the increased volume.
 
I am thinking about a strength cycle this time around using Bill Starr's 5x5. However I was thinking about modifying it slightly. I would rather improve my OHP than my press so I was going to switch the bench and OHP exercises in terms of how they are scheduled. I am not sure if this is a good idea. Bill could have had a good reason for doing OHP once a week, but I dont know. Also Bench will be replaced with weighted dips.

I was also thinking of adding two exercises, 3x5 ramping like others with the 3rd set being my 5RM.
1) Rotating: Pullups/Pendlay Rows/Weight Hypers
2) Rotating: Curls/Rotator Cuff work/Weighted Situps or crunches

The goal is to at least maintain my strength in those lifts. I am starting off HST style till 5s and progressing right into the 5x5 program.

Anything that seems counter productive please let me know. Thanks!
 
That sounds like a good plan. I've done a 5x5 (or it might have been two, don't remember) where I swapped the bench and the overhead press - it worked great. I don't think bench press is an exercise that will degrade very much if you aren't doing it, and weighted dips + ohp works all the muscles involved in bench pressing anyway.
 
The once-per-week OHP's were probably to save the shoulders. They're part of why mine is shot, so be careful of it when you get heavy.
To add to what Lol said, I think those of us who travel, work construction(like me), split shifts and stuff that interferes with our w.o. schedules, we'd be a lot bigger if we were steady. I hate to miss workouts, but also hate to go in feeling like a flat tire and do a lousy job with no progress. So I use compounds to get the most out of it and hit it hard when I go in. Lately I've just had to split things up to just maintain; iso's would be out of the question.
The straight sets work and add workload, but have limits when you get heavy; you'll need to eat your wheaties. We did them in the &quot;3 sets of 8&quot; days, and HST has them, but under fatigue control. I think it all depends upon the approach.
 
<div>
(bgates1654 @ Mar. 20 2008,23:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I am thinking about a strength cycle this time around using Bill Starr's 5x5. However I was thinking about modifying it slightly. I would rather improve my OHP than my press so I was going to switch the bench and OHP exercises in terms of how they are scheduled. I am not sure if this is a good idea. Bill could have had a good reason for doing OHP once a week, but I dont know. Also Bench will be replaced with weighted dips.</div>
Actually, I believe the original program had OHP and NO bench press. Bench presses were added in so the program would not be totally rejected by it's targeted market. Also. the rows were originally power cleans and I've never quite understood how rows could sub for power cleans. Deadlifts seem like a better substitute to me. Anyway, these programs aren't carved in stone and you shouldn't have any qualms about tweaking them to suit your needs.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 21 2008,08:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The once-per-week OHP's were probably to save the shoulders.</div>
Before reading the following article I would have agreed with you: http://www.crossfit.com/journal/library/67_08_Overhead_Lifting.pdf
Actually it's 3 or 4 short articles about OHP's and shoulders. I can sum up the articles in 1 sentence - OHPs damage your shoulders like squats damage your knees. It looks like once again the conventional wisdom that we had beaten into our heads for all these years is wrong.

Who remembers this one? Coach to profusely sweating high school athlete, &quot;Rinse your mouth out, but don't swallow the water. It will cause cramps. Here, take a couple of these salt tablets.&quot;
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top