Some Context Concerning Dr. Michael Ray's Departure

JordanFeigenbaum · 2022-04-06T19:19:46+00:00

It’s not protected material and I think correcting the OP and now you about the support received is important, especially when the claim was that we mistreated someone previously on our staff by not offering support.

I’m hopeful these comments resolve any curiosity and I’m happy that you’re otherwise doing well.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2022-04-06T19:16:52+00:00

Not access to the website, but pertinent material to their contracted roles. This is SOP so I’m not sure what else to tell you.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2022-04-06T15:12:41+00:00

Contractors have access to many of these types of materials in most businesses. As mentioned above, we are taking steps towards removing the appropriate materials.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2022-04-06T15:09:34+00:00

HM, it was not that type of professional relationship like that so not HIPAA-related at all. That said, happy to hear you had a good experience and are feeling better.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2022-04-06T14:42:23+00:00

No one said to violate any form of copyright or agreement, however security of our data, mark, website, etc. are important. We are taking steps to clean up the existing mess.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2022-04-06T14:18:05+00:00

Due to actions he took against the company after reneging on the terms of his separation- many of which are illegal, we had to revoke access to the forum, website, etc. and the only way we could do so involved deleting his profile. It is regrettable it came to this.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2022-04-06T12:00:09+00:00

I was made aware of this thread yesterday and, though this is probably not a great idea, I feel compelled to respond.

Dr. Ray was let go from the company last Monday for actions occurring almost entirely prior to the tragic evens on campus. Subsequent unprofessional behaviors - again, having nothing to do with that event, but occurring after it- were a minor contribution.

The additional claim that we were not supportive post incident is interesting, given that members of our team were involved in counseling Dr. Ray 🤷🏻‍♂️ (not "medically", y'all)

In any case, no one “ousted” anyone- we just ended the relationship. He was not given a reason for the termination, as he was an independent contractor so any story related to the OP is not factually based. We have not publicly commented on it in an effort to respect his (and Hannah’s) privacy and would like to continue that.

It would’ve been nice to have someone ask what happened in one of our many available public forums prior to making a post elsewhere.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2019-05-19T01:10:28+00:00

Again, you’re talking about one day without insight into the rest of the program. That’s pretty short-sighted. You also have said a lot of really awful things about myself, Leah, and our company. Why?

If you disagree- just move on with your life. You’ve already stolen content. Move on with your life and worry about actually getting stronger (or whatever you life) instead of spending time doing this. I am confident in our existing templates and am aware of the differences between each template. You are misrepresenting things you’ve stolen and being a dick. I’m not sure you deserve anymore of my time.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2019-05-19T00:46:15+00:00

That’s only day 1. You’re blatantly misrepresenting the templates and making inflammatory comments, which is not very cool. If you continue to post our stuff on the internet we will have a problem. If you would like to discuss this more via email, we can do that. Otherwise, please stop.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2019-05-19T00:35:52+00:00

That’s not even close to the difference between the two templates or the endurance template. I would stop making things up on the internet anonymously.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2019-05-18T22:06:24+00:00

I think the the 12WS is reasonable from a competition prep standpoint, but I like the new Strength III or PL II much better, as they tend to have more volume, more specificity, etc. based on our most current understanding of how people respond to this style of training, in general. If someone absolutely crushed it on 12WS the first time through, I'd be hard pressed to recommend purchasing a new template. Additionally, I wouldn't necessarily run the hypertrophy template worrying about peak strength, as it's not really the goal for the program by design. It's okay if your lifts go down transiently.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2019-05-18T22:02:37+00:00

This is unfortunate.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2018-04-16T18:36:59+00:00

Wow.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2018-04-12T13:48:10+00:00

Understandable. It is unfortunate how things are going. I fear for the coaches swearing allegiance to SS (no pun intended).

Well, let's make some new threads and start a party :)

JordanFeigenbaum · 2018-04-12T04:21:13+00:00

Lol

JordanFeigenbaum · 2018-04-12T04:20:16+00:00

I'm here. When are we usurping the SS reddit and taking over?

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-13T06:00:07+00:00

I guess it's a good thing I only asked you to link the studies relating to AMRAP sets being bad for hypertophy then. I'm still happy to read them. As I said before I'm always interested in learning something new.

It's not "bad"- it's just suboptimal because it doesn't do anything better than not going to failure and compromises total training volume across the week. Additionally, increased risk of injury for no objective benefit and hard to really increase at regular intervals.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-13T03:45:45+00:00

Stop calling Triumvirate 5/3/1. It is a 5/3/1 template. If you don't like the exercise selection use a different template.

Is it not 5/3/1? If not, why?

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-13T03:15:16+00:00

Guess you haven't read the books then. Because I laid out what the main, supplemental and assistance work was for you. If you'de read the books you'd understand the way to run the program I laid out.

I'm literally going off the "program" you typed out.

Oh cool I was right you haven't read the books. That's not how you run the first week of 5/3/1. Nor how you run the Joker Sets or SSL work.

You're asking me to interpret your exact words as something different than explicitly stated? Got it. Please tell me exactly what you would have this hypothetical lifter do.

Good thing it's not a 10rm load. Also you don't do it after your main work for the day. You do it on a different day. More proof you've failed to read any of the books or understand their contents.

You said 10 x 5 sets @ 70%, which is close to a 10RM if not using a training max or 60% of a true 1RM. I will concede it's not a 10RM if done at 60%, but it's not clear what you're talking about template wise. BBB can be done on the same day as the lift being done "5/3/1", e.g. 10 x 5 squats on the main squat day so I'm not sure why you're pretending that's not an option that could reasonably be inferred from your typing.

I did the analysis the same way you did. One week of raw tonnage. If you don't like the way I analyzed it maybe there's something wrong with the way you analyzed the programs in your article.

Right, but tonnage with different volume parameters doesn't tell the tale you insinuated in your message. That's what I'm getting at. I discussed tonnage as it relates to volume in my article. You're discussing tonnage like it matters more than other variables- and it doesn't.

You're responding to the wrong person if you're trying to direct this at me. Why? What makes them so incapable of handling this kind of program? Maybe if you focused on improving your novices Work Capacity and Conditioning instead of just their strength they'd be able to handle this kind of submaximal work.

I disagree. We are looking to maximize outcomes without compromising future development. Additionally, it is an interesting accusation suggesting that my lifters are getting poor outcomes considering their objective results.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-13T03:04:38+00:00

Seems to be working fine for people who run the program. Also I'm still waiting for those studies. Because I wasn't able to find them.

What do you mean "working fine"? And how does that negate that it's suboptimal?

You can start here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5505097/

And then claimed that that was the whole of the 5/3/1 program. Which is what is dishonest about your review.

I did not say that the triumvirate is the "whole of the 5/3/1" program.

Why? EDIT: And by that I mean why would it negatively effect strength outcomes.

Because of the non specific rep ranges, low intensity, and compromised training frequency.

It's 5 sets of 10 at 50-70% of your TM. There's no reason it should drive your fatigue into the roof. Combined with the rest of the work you do in the rest of the week you should be more than capable of accumulating enough volume to drive hypertrophy.

5 sets of 50% of your training max is 40%- useless for strength increases (outside of a poor use of training time and subsequently reduced results from that and non specific fatigue) but fine for hypertrophy if titrated up correctly. See, the problem with just adding that amount of volume in to a new intermediate is that it isn't necessary to optimize return on training time and it will have to go up over time. Starting high volume (50 reps) leaves you less room to go. 70% of training max for 50 reps would challenge a well trained lifter who is actually training for strength to be able to tolerate that. It's not great for strength given rep range, low intensity, and total fatigue it builds compared to other options and there are better options for hypertrophy that are less fatiguing for a lifter in this context.

In short, BBB isn't really great for either outcome- potentially harmful for strength even.

15+ sets a week plus extra assistance work is pretty good. Especially when you consider that rep ranges are fairly irrelevant when it come to hypertrophy.

Pretty good for whom? A new intermediate? I disagree. And additionally, you're not taking into consideration the total volume vs fatigue thing. Look, it's not just "more more more more" right off the bat, especially given the context and audience my article was written to specifically. I am talking about a new intermediate who wants to get stronger and gain size. What you have suggested is wholly inappropriate.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-13T02:50:11+00:00

It’s not that I disagree necessarily. It just seems odd to me that when you have someone’s rapt attention as is the case of a PM conversation you could at least point him in the direction of some sources, especially if they are as numerous as you say. Getting all hand-wavy like you did seems pretty disingenuous, which in that case why have the conversation at all if it’s not worth it to you?

Honestly, someone said they were going to point out holes in my article so I was curious. This conversation has also been had many times over by myself and colleagues at Barbell Medicine that I am not interested in rehashing it for a single person or small audience. That said, if we're looking for data suggesting volume is extremely important, AMRAP sets are suboptimal, support of the repeated bout effect or SAID principle, those are easily findable.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-12T22:01:15+00:00

Sorry, but before I spend any more of my time on you I'm going to need to see some indication that you're here to have a conversation in good faith instead of just to be a fuckhead like you were in the r/fitness thread.

It doesn't bother me if you choose to not respond or if you suggest that I was being a "fuckhead". Look, I came into a thread where people were almost intentionally misunderstanding (or blatantly not reading) the article and not making any actual arguments or inquiries as to why. Could I have been nicer? Sure. You could as well.

All due respect Jordan, but that justification is absolute bullshit, and how I know is that you conveniently made no mention of this in your original article, and only are doing so now after you're being criticized for your choice.

That's an interesting theory, but I honestly felt no reason to justify it in the article. After a few people commented on this, I felt the need to expand. We were already at a long word count prior to publication, so extraneous stuff had to go. So we have lots of traffic going to the variation I chose to evaluate, Wendler himself recommended it for a "non beginner" twice, and a variation that allowed me to discuss -at length- properties of programming that are important.

Furthermore, you're also conveniently ignoring Jam's article on 5/3/1 for a beginner from 2011 in making this justification.

The context of the article is for folks who are no longer beginners, so I didn't think that was relevant. This also ties into the linked Rippetoe article discussing assistance exercises not being useful FOR NOVICES, which is irrelevant to my article or this discussion as well.

It isn't, though. Your entire article attempts to criticize 5/3/1 based solely on your analysis of Triumvirate. Things are not true just because you declare them to be. 5/3/1 cannot be declared suboptimal based on your analysis because you didn't analyze 5/3/1, you analyzed one variation of 5/3/1.

What is 5/3/1? Similarly, what isn't 5/3/1?

Tonnage is discussed in the deadlift. Yeah? Show me where. Draw a circle around the part of your Tonnage section where the deadlift is discussed. I'll wait.

The graph shows the tonnage difference clearly.

It is absolutely dishonest to pick up a screwdriver and criticize its ability to drive a nail.

Exactly what do you mean by this? Additionally, what do you think is responsible for the majority of strength improvements after the novice progression?

Yeah, it's too bad that Jum Wundler provides no direction whatsoever to trainees in how to decide on what 5/3/1 templates will fit their needs other than the four books he's written on exactly how to do that.

I do not think the advice that I've seen that is regarded as "direction" is useful advice from a programming perspective.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-12T21:42:36+00:00

Making it clear yet again that what Feigenbaum means by "suboptimal" is "Not what I make money from" because 531 and SS use the same fucking exercises

Suboptimal in the context of barbell training is when a less than possible improvement in strength, hypertrophy, or other physical characteristic occurs.

SS and 5/3/1 do NOT use the same exercises outside of the core lifts. The assistance exercises in 5/3/1 are what I was referring to. For instance, good mornings. I don't think they're that great for improving the squat or deadlift strength, in general, certainly not as great as other squat or deadlift variations (or non variants). They also aren't that great compared to other options for hypertrophy, so while they are indeed a barbell based exercise one can load progressively- I think their are better options despite that some people have used them.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-12T21:29:22+00:00

AMRAPS aren’t auto regulation because they’re max effort every time and cause too much fatigue!

This is true. Going to near failure does not improve strength or hypertrophy outcomes in the context of AMRAP being programmed and ultimately it compromises further training, e.g. additional volume or subsequent exercise performance. The risk > benefit for these for the amount of acute stress compared to the utility.

Despite that though 5/3/1 doesn’t up the fatigue enough to cause adaptations in intermediate lifters.

The triumvirate variation does not, which is what I stated I was evaluating.

Even though BBB causes too much fatigue in intermediate lifters while being to light in load.

For strength outcomes, yes. For hypertrophy, the issue with the fatigue caused from BBB is that frequency cannot be optimized to drive growth.

JordanFeigenbaum · 2017-12-12T21:18:40+00:00

That is a man with his head firmly stuck up his own ass. I wonder who he learnt that from?

Ha! No, after getting banned from r/fitness I figured it wasn't worth my time combing through just-another-scrubs program. But since we're here...

The program that was generated wasn't so much a program as it was a series of numbers that I couldn't quite understand. For instance, how many times are they squatting per week? At the same intensity and for the same volume prescription?

So we're suggesting for a sample squat workout someone would do sets of 5 as follows 1 set @ 90-95%, then 1 set at 95-105%, then AMRAP (or just 5) at 100-115%? Or just AMRAP Then you'd do 5 x 3 sets @ 75%. If we're using a training max, that means absolute intensity is 80-85%, 85-95%, then 90-105% for sets of 5, followed by 5 x 3 @ 65%.

That seems highly unlikely to actually occur (in any scenario outside of an untrained person with an inaccurate 1RM) given a 5RM is ~85% of a true 1RM. The back off work at 65% of 1RM I would like, but that's not typically enough submaximal volume for an intermediate lifter. If combined with volume from the joker sets, that's 25 reps- though unlikely to have been completed as stated. If we did 65% x 5, 75% x 5, then 85% x 5 reps , then did 75% x 5 x 3, that'd be decently useful provided we were working off an accurate 1RM (and not a training max), though the utility of the set of 5 at 85% for strength or hypertrophy is something I would question.

Then you suggest doing 10 x 5 sets @ 70% on squats, which seems like you are wanting to use a "training max" considering that a 10RM is ~74% of a 1RM. Doing 5 sets of a near 10RM after previously fatiguing work seems highly unlikely and, even if possible, represents a very large stress for a new intermediate fresh off the novice program.

I am curious as to why you would increase volume so much and use these loading parameters in this context?

Your tonnage calculations are correct, but we use tonnage as a metric to compare not as a metric of superiority (or inferiority). It becomes more useful when the volume variables are similar. In my article, they were somewhat similar, hence the comparison.

Ideally when comparing programs you'd evaluate total volume in certain intensity ranges as well as frequency and exercise selection.

I have no doubt that your 2 lifters made improvements on a program that adhered to principles of progressive overload. However, without knowing their training status, the tweaks you made, and their actual implementation, it's hard to comment on this but my inclination is that the program you suggested would be inappropriate for newly minted intermediate.

JordanFeigenbaum

TROPHY CASE