Bodynet informatie database.

[Dynamix]

[Aldo Raine]

Bedankt mannen. Goede toevoegingen.

[kedamn]

Thanks aldo! Klein vraagje maybe niet goed gekeken, ik las net het gedeelte van aantal gram protein per bw/kg. Dit is voor een natural athlete , is er mischien een onderzoek hoeveel dit omhoog ( als dat uberhaupt het geval is) gaat voor mensen die op aas zitten?

Iemand?

[Aldo Raine]

Iemand?

Ik niet Kedamn nooit verdiept in dat soort materie en dat gaat ook niet gebeuren denk ik. Iemand anders op het forum die hier antwoord op kan geven?

[Bigdude]

Iemand?

Wat ik weet wat ik geleerd heb van mijn coach. AAS test bijvoorbeeld is ook een eiwit spaarder. Hij gaf mij dan ook altijd het advies om iets boven onderhoud te eten en niet drastische de eiwitten te uppe.
Meer zoals een normale bulk zonder AAS dit omdat de AAS al zorgen voor een sneller herstel en beter herstel dan zonder.
Uiteraard is schoner eten wel aangeraden. Echter heb ik zelf eens geprobeerd om tijdens een kuur gewoon op onderhoud te eten niks verhogen niks verlagen en ik gainde nog steeds massa en verloor vet test-tren kuurtje.
Dus wat ik daar uit op kan maken is dat op onderhoud eten zorgt voor gaines en boven onderhoud uiteraard meer.
Maar niet vergeten BB is echt een sport van uitproberen dus ik zou zeggen probeer wat uit en kijk wat voor jou lichaam het beste werkt.
Maar verschild ook ik vertelde nu over off season natuurlijk. Als je wil kan ik je de doseringen ook wel vertellen. En voor wedstrijden een compleet ander schema natuurlijk mocht je die willen PM als dat is toegestaan ?

[rain]

Flinke lap tekst en ik begrijp niet alles ,maar wel interessant.

Link: Effects of meal frequency on weight loss and body composition: a meta-analysis | Nutrition Reviews

[NickP]

Kan zo een lijstje opnoemen van namen die veel meer kennis hebben dan dat ze op het forum neerzetten:
- Ruhl
- Iron Mind
- Akito
- Pescatore
- Mvos
- Aldo Raine
- Gus
- Iguana
- Inferno, maar die is ff afwezig
- Generation_iron
- Gleke, is die er nog?
- NBTP, is die er ook nog?

Be my guest please.

[kedamn]

O lord bigdude begint echt irritant te worden nu....

[Dexie]

Eiwitspaarder is leuk in een cut ja, maar in de bulk kan je juist eiwitten verhogen met aas omdat je er meer kan "verwerken". Vraag me toch altijd af waarom mensen al kuren zonder dat ze iets snappen van de shit die ze in zichzelf injecteren.

trouwens wel benieuwd wat jij/ je trainer als pro contest gebruiken dus bigdude als je wilt stuur maar een PM

[kedamn]

En precies daarom vraag ik of er onderzoeken of dergelijke zijn die aan tonen dat meer eiwitten ( buiten het feit van een calorie surplus) tijdens een kuur effectief/er zijn. Ik lees echt van gasten die op 400-500 gr zitten en vraag me af waarom. Als het vullen van calorieen de enige reden is ok dan blijft het daarbij maar zit er verder niks achter?

[Dexie]

Ik heb zo 123 geen literatuur voor je en ben atm aan het werk, maar zal morgen op school ff voor je kijken man

[kedamn]

Thanks alot bro!

[akito]

Eerste toevoeginkje van mij, hopelijk kunnen we deze shit snel ergens bundelen
Kuren met hoger vet% brengt praktisch geen extra risico's met zich mee (vanuit hormonaal perspectief althans).
+ side-conclusion
"Aanleg" om, extra snel, weer dik te worden als je dat eenmaal bent geweest omdat je lichaam meer vetcellen zou hebben is tot zekere hoogte bullshit (denk hierbij aan >30-35% lichaamsvet als threshold zeg maar). Elaboration hieronder (kopie van wat oude posts)

wat versta je onder vetcelconcentratie? Overigens meen ik dat een kleinere vetcel minder stress vertoont binnen het endoplasmatisch reticulum (plek waar aromatase ontstaat). Fat cell hypertrofie is imo sws overrated want komt nauwelijks voor tenzij +- morbide obees zeg maar. zit nu even krap qua tijd straks misschien wat uitgebreider posten Maar het is idd niet het verschil tussen dag en nacht hoor, maar het heeft invloed.

De hoeveelheid vetcellen zeg maar. Die neemt niet af, hooguit bij. Maar er vind toch wel degelijk hypertrofie plaats? Bedoel je hyperplasie? Maar oke, ben benieuwd, vind het erg interessant.

Bedoel hyperplasie inderdaad, waardoor de hoeveelheid vetcellen kan toenemen, maar dat is naar mijn mening vrij overrated en zal over het algemeen bij een volwassen individu nauwelijks voorkomen tenzij hij over een hele lange termijn zwaar overconsumeert (en dan zit je al snel richting morbide obees). Of apoptosis (afname van hoeveelheid vetcellen) bestaat of niet is trouwens nog een actueel issue, er bestaat namelijk wel een proces dat zorgt voor een positieve hoeveelheid vetcelafbraak (je lichaam 'replaced' standaard een bepaald percentage per jaar, maar streeft naar homeostase), dit proces is voorlopig enkel alleen te triggeren bij bepaalde ziekten e.d.
Hypertrofie vindt uiteraard plaats (vergroten v/d cellen), alleen het 'limiet' waarbij de vetcellen volzitten en het lichaam overgaat op hyperplasie (vermeerdering van cellen) zit vrij hoog. Een stuk hoger dan de gemiddelde krachtsporter bv. in een bulk gaat bereiken zeg maar.
Nou het stukje over aromatase; hoe meer triglyceride zich in een vet-cel bevindt, hoe meer leptine deze cel afgeeft richting de hersenen (stof geeft hoeveelheid energieopslag in het adipose weefsel door aan hersenen). Dit is oorspronkelijk een lichaamseigen verwering tegen obesitas/gewichtstoename, omdat leptine probeert homeostase van lichaamsgewicht te bewerkstelligen. Leptine zorgt voor een versterking van de hoeveelheid aromatase en de ER waardoor er meer oestradiol gevormd gaat worden, omdat aromatase dient als katalysator voor deze reactie (test -> oest). Een (bijna) lege kleine vetcel zal dus relatief minder leptine afgeven en relatief weinig 'trigger' voor de productie van aromatase veroorzaken dan een grote (bijna) gevulde vetcel. Er zijn nog meer processen die hierin spelen maar bovenstaande is de meeste concrete/duidelijkste, als je er echt interesse in hebt zou ik Principles of Biochemistry (4e editie) van Lehninger ergens vandaan plukken en hoofdstuk 10 doorlezen (over vet), kan je evt. wel een PDF'j e verschaffen . Hele boek is opzich wel interessant alleen vrij groot... (meen ~1100 blz).

Er bestaat een "critical fat cell size hypothesis" die ervan uitgaat dat vanaf een bepaald 'kritisch punt' (wanneer de vetcellen tot een bepaald punt 'gevuld' zijn) nieuwe cellen gegenereerd worden om de overtollige energie (vet) in op te slaan. Maar een menselijk lichaam kan vaak meer energie opslaan dan men denkt en dat punt ligt dan ook vrij hoog (is geen vast percentage voor te noemen want elk lichaam zit hormonaal anders in elkaar).

[Aldo Raine]

Squat Mechanics: A Deep Analysis by Mark Rippetoe

Here's what you need to know...

• When you squat, use your hips. This will require a more horizontal back angle than you think.
• You may have heard that you must stay upright when you squat, with as vertical a back angle as possible. You've heard wrong. Think "rigid," not "vertical."
• The angle of hip flexion must equal the back angle if the spinal relationships are to remain neutral.
• The cue to "Point your nipples at the floor" works very well for the squat.
• Looking up when squatting does nothing but fight against the correct back angle. Look down.
• If your hamstrings get sore when you squat, you're doing something wrong.

The #1 Squat Mistake


Every seminar we hold is attended by people who have read the book, who have been training with the material for various lengths of time, and who are interested enough in what we have to say that they have paid money to hear it from us directly.
Yet every Saturday morning's squat session on the platform involves deprogramming the too-vertical back angle of essentially everybody who attends. Almost everybody. Why?
I don't know. I thought I had been clear. If the bar is to descend, it is necessary for the hips and the knees to bend. This can be accomplished in several ways, but as you'll see, the movement of the hips should be the primary emphasis.
In order for the hips to be the focus of the squat, the back angle has to facilitate a hips-dominant movement. The load is placed on the hips by lengthening the moment arm on the hips and back and shortening the moment arm on the knee.
This reflects the anatomical relationships of the knees, hips, and back, their respective muscle masses and leverages, and allows the most muscle mass to be affected by the movement over the greatest effective range of motion. It turns the squat into a hips-dominant back exercise that carries the legs along for the ride.
Everybody who comes to a seminar has read the arguments and knows our analysis. But somehow, this critical detail is getting misinterpreted, misunderstood, or just ignored.

Are You Front-Squatting Your Squat?

We go through about 5 hours of lecture prior to the practical session that deals with the hip's function and the physics of moment forces, yet enough people still try to front-squat their squats that correcting it takes a significant amount of time on the platform.
Our job is to correct things like this, and we do, I assure you. We've had a lot of practice. And once we get it corrected, you always tell us that it works much better this way. So maybe it's time to clarify so that my obviously obscure point becomes less obscure.

Use Your Hips. Really.

When you squat, use your hips. This means that you'll have to use a more horizontal back angle than the one in the picture in your head.
You know that picture of the squat you carry around with you, from watching Olympic lifters front squat or doing their "Olympic" squats that are supposed to be more "athletic."
Maybe it came from reading Muscle & Fitness or any of the other newsstand exercise publications at the cash register, while you were waiting to pay for your skinless chicken breasts and rice. Or maybe it was taught to you by an expert CrossFit Level I coach, who thinks that a squat finally "matures" when you can lead with your chest with 185.
Related:  CrossFit & "Functional Strength"

You may even have read that elite powerlifters squat with a vertical back – some of them do, especially the ones who lift with a sumo stance in a monolift, in the triple-ply suit-and-wraps recreational federations that don't judge depth.
The correct application of the hip-drive model entails assuming the correct back angle and knee position for the bottom of the squat by the time you're about half-way down, and holding it as constant as possible until you get back to that position on the way back up.
For most people this will mean that establishing this position requires the knees to travel forward and out to a point approximately vertical to the toes (this position in a below-parallel squat will obviously depend on anthropometry), while simultaneously driving the hips back.
Our stance places the toes out at 30-35 degrees so that all of the lateral and medial hip musculature that maintains the femurs in external rotation is involved in the movement, so knees must usually be shoved out to keep the thighs parallel to the feet.
Knees outside the toes is a common misinterpretation made by exceptionally flexible people. Straight thigh/foot alignment keeps the knees and ankles from any twisting that a misalignment can cause.
At precisely the same time the knees are traveling forward and out, the hips are moving back into their position of loading. They move back because the bar must stay over the mid-foot for balance, and if knees move forward a little, hips must move back more to compensate.
"Hip flexion" is the proper term for this movement, and making up new words, like "hinging," is just not necessary.

Your Back Will Be Okay. Really.

I think the problem we see on the platform arises from a misunderstanding about the nature of spinal loading during hip flexion. The Forces of Darkness have done their job well, and they have implanted the notion that you have to stay upright when you squat, with as vertical a back angle as possible.
And I'm telling you to wipe this silly bullshit from your mind. Think "rigid," not "vertical" when you squat.
A strong isometric contraction of the muscles surrounding your spine keeps your back in Normal Anatomical Position – flat, as we say in the business, because a muscular lower back will appear flat across the top of the muscles as they hold a normal lordotic curve in the spine – and a flat back is both an efficient transmitter of force and a safe position in which to be loaded.
You have been told that a more horizontal back angle exposes the spine to something called "shear," an apparently fatal situation that arises when the back bears weight at an angle.
From previous discussions, you know that moment – or leverage, the force transmitted along a wrench that causes a bolt to rotate and the force that the barbell applies to your back during a squat – is a "shear" force, since it's comprised of forces acting in two co-planar directions within the stressed object.
In the squat, the moment force on the back is comprised of the force of the weight of the bar pushing vertically (gravity, right?) down on the back, which is held at an angle, and the force that's applied through the back in the opposite direction to resist the weight and move it through the range of motion.
So it's correct to say that the back is "under shear stress," because moment is a shear force. It's incorrect to say that if you walk outside when it's cold, you'll get sick because you were warm, then cold, then warm again: the Temperature Change Theory of Disease.
It's also just as incorrect to say that the back "will shear" – the use of "shear" as a verb that means one segment sliding past another along their shared plane – during a squat, since that cannot and will not happen.
Amazingly enough, mechanisms exist to prevent this from happening, due to the fact that it would have been inconvenient during human evolutionary development towards a bipedal posture if the spine had come apart every time it was loaded at an angle. You can see how that might have happened occasionally over several million years.
Absent the spinal condition known as "Spondylolisthesis," the vertebral bodies cannot slide past each other because these posterior structures of each vertebral segment overlap the one underneath.
Try as I might, I can't find a single reference anywhere to a thoracic or lumbar spinal cord/cauda equina injury sustained during properly supervised and performed squats and deadlifts (note the emphasis). We did find one case of a bad cervical injury that was associated with "weight training" – perhaps looking up isn't the greatest idea.
But during the entire time I've been teaching people how to lift barbells, since 1978 and not always correctly, I've never heard of such a thing, certainly not from anyone I've coached or taught to coach. People are remarkably diligent when it comes to telling you about spinal cord injuries they sustain as a result of your advice, and I've had no reports.
I'm not saying that spinal cord injury during strength training using thecorrectly-performed squat (note again the emphasis) hasn't happened. I'm just saying that had it happened, we'd probably already have heard about it.
So I'm not quite sure why all these Physical Therapists, personal trainers, and Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialists are so concerned about something that probably hasn't ever occurred, and why they don't seem to understand that your back adapts to the stress of training just like everything else does. Truly puzzling.

Round Is the Real Problem. Really.

In the real world, when the back fails to do its job of efficiently transmitting force in a squat or pull, it fails in flexion – it rounds over, out of extension, due to the failure of the posterior erector muscles to maintain sufficient isometric force production during the movement.
At the level of the flexing spinal column itself, like a loaded beam, the posterior (top side of the back when you're bent over in a squat) components are placed in tension as they tend to elongate around the convex side of the curve, while the anterior (lower) components are loaded in compression as they mash together on the concave side of the curve.
A flexing spine could smash the anterior side closed and stretch the posterior side open, producing the possibility of a disc injury. But actually, spinal flexion under load is not so much dangerous as it is inefficient.
After all, you've been picking things up off the floor with a round back for a long time, and you probably haven't been killed. Of course, those things were very light relative to a heavy deadlift.
We save permission for rounding the back under the bar for the 3rd attempt at the meet. Sometimes a limit attempt will be done with less-than-perfect technique, and competition is the place to assume the risk of doing it "wrong." (Don't tolerate it in training, or your back will never get strong.)
More importantly, if the back stays rigid, all the force gets from the extending hips and knees to the bar on the back, efficiently. A flexing spine leaks some of the force into the changing geometry, meaning that the knee/hip extension doesn't all get to the bar.
When we lift weights, we fight moment forces with the tools at our disposal. Our tools are the tension-producing contractile mechanism of the muscles and the structural form, rigidity, and hardness of the bones that act as levers in the system.
In fact, within the correctly extended spine during a squat or pull, each vertebral segment is held in neutral compression along the spinal axis by the isometric contraction of the muscle mass that keeps the spine rigid.
The erectors, abs, and all the surrounding musculature squish the column down into a compression load, which increases as the changing angle of the segment increases the moment force.
The resulting rigidity of the trunk segment enables the entire structure to function as a solid bar to transmit moment force between the hips and the load. If you keep your back in rigid extension, the back is loaded as a solid segment, not as individual vertebral components.
A tight, flat, rigid back therefore holds all the vertebral components in their normal relationship with each other, and this prevents both injury and loss of force transmission. If the intervertebral discs receive the same force across their inferior and superior articular faces in an anterior/posterior direction, they don't get hurt.

Back and Hips Together

So, when you squat, you're going to use your back. Get used to the idea that the back must be locked – and I mean locked tight and flat – into a rigid bar when you squat.
If it is, the back angle is not your concern, since the back is okay at an angle if it's rigid. But the angle of hip flexion must equal the back angle if the spinal relationships are to remain neutral.
Read that again: here's the conceptual problem you've got to fix. If you're going to flex your hips to use them in the squat, you must also bend over enough to keep your back in its normal anatomical relationship with the pelvis if you're going to use the back as a safe and efficient transmitter of moment force between your hips and the bar.
In other words, your isometric contraction around the spine that locks the back rigid and aligns it with the pelvis protects the spine, not a more vertical back angle.
A vertical back is not a "functional" position for either the hips or the back. You cannot lift anything – a loaded barbell or a bale of hay – in this position and keep it in balance over the mid-foot. Eliminate this flawed thinking, and make up your mind that when you squat you're going to use your back.
Related:  Mark Rippetoe on deadlift mechanics

You're going to keep it flat, make it strong enough to stay flat, and make it do its job as an efficient transmitter of force between hips and barbell.
This means that you're probably going to have to bend over more than you want to. We've found that the cue to "Point your nipples at the floor" works remarkably well. Everybody has them, everybody knows where they are, and everybody knows which direction they're pointing at any given time.
And it's also very interesting that our recommended eye-gaze direction reinforces this position. Looking at the floor directly in front of your feet makes this back angle much easier to obtain and hold throughout the movement. It keeps your cervical spine neutral, and orients the rest of your spine correctly.
Looking up at the wall or the ceiling does nothing but fight against the correct back angle. So don't do it. Look down, you hard-headed assholes.

There Will Be No Good Mornings

Many people seem to be afraid of good morning-ing their squats. Perhaps they have read criticisms of our low-bar method of squatting from young geniuses on the internet who think that only since SS:BBT was published have people been using a more horizontal back angle to squat.
The most common mischaracterization of the technique is to equate it with the good morning, a barbell exercise in which a changing back angle through the range of motion is the loading mechanism:
I shall reiterate: The correct application of the hip-drive model entails assuming the correct back angle and knee position for the bottom of the squat by the time you're about half-way down, and holding it as constant as possible until you get back to that position on the way back up.
Nearly constant: the initiation of the movement out of the bottom with the hips will look like a very small change in back angle as the hips lead out of the hole. This is actually produced with a very slight knee extension.
Hip-bone's connected to the knee-bone, as it were, and if the hip comes up a little, the knee will have moved back, a little. This slight knee extension is essentially a quadriceps contraction, an obviously important part of the squat, but you think about it proximally even as it is a distal action.
Thinking about leading straight up with hips instead of thinking about extending the knees is the important thing going on in the lifter's mind that keeps the motion from turning into a good morning, which happens sometimes when the lifter moves hips back instead of up, and the knees have extended excessively.
If the back angle changes to the extent that the bar drifts forward of the mid-foot balance point, or if too much back angle is lost horizontally, it changes the mechanics of the lift. And if it's excessive, it will change what's essentially an isometric hamstring function – that of maintaining the back angle – into an eccentric lengthening, which is what a good morning actually is.
If your hamstrings get sore when you squat, this is probably what you're doing.

Dem Bones

But thinking about lifting the chest first pulls the knees forward – chest-bone's connected to the back-bone, back-bone's connected to the hip-bone, hip-bone's connected to the knee-bone – and this closes the knee angle.
Knee flexion (loose knees) slacks the hamstrings in two different ways. First, knees-forward coming into the bottom with a vertical back angle, like a front squat, slacks the hamstrings quite a bit from both proximal and distal ends. A closed knee and an open hip place the hamstring in the shortest position it can occupy while you're standing on the ground.
If the bar is to stay over the mid-foot with the back held more vertical, the knees must slide forward more than they have to in a squat done with a more horizontal back angle. In either squat, this knee placement should take place by the time you're about halfway down, just like the establishment of your back angle.
Many lifters make the mistake of allowing the knees to slide forward at thebottom of a back squat, and the mental picture of a chest-up position is usually responsible.
Knees forward is required for an Olympic lifter, who's trying to rack a clean on his shoulders with a vertical back as fast as he can get under the bar – it's a submaximal squat anyway, and you don't have to front squat a submaximal weight with much hip.
Speed is far more important here than anything else, and loose stuff can be moved around faster than tight stuff.
The moment arm the hamstrings support in a front squat is very short, because the back is vertical and the bar is therefore close to the hips. But trying to back squat a heavy weight with slacked hamstrings is terribly inefficient. It can be done, but it's not optimal.
Second, lifting the chest in the middle of the movement, on the way back up, slacks the hamstrings a little, primarily from the distal end, killing the hamstring tension necessary for maintaining the longer moment arm on the back and hips. Keeping the knees "tight" – staying in the hips – keeps the back and hip musculature engaged in the squat.
The large muscle mass actively used in this way is why we can squat more weight than we can front squat. The contractile mass of the quads is less than the contractile mass of the posterior chain musculature, and using both quads and posterior chain to their maximum capacity is more efficient than leaving out some of the posterior chain.
These squats probably represent a comparable effort, given the differences in gear. Compare the lifters' knee position during the ascent, and note the depth and bar speed in both squats.

Moving Knees Leak Power

Both mistakes involve too much knee movement. Moving knees leak hip power. The correct movement is "all" hips.
Specifically thinking about holding the knees still at the bottom while "bouncing" off the hips behind you can be a good cue to fix this. Placing the knees where you want them as you set the back angle half-way down, holding them tight, and driving up with the hips can correct both problems.
The knees will move a little, but the idea is for them to move just enough, at the right time, by focusing on force production at the hip, facilitated by "frozen knees," or "tight shins," or whatever cue works best for you.
In practice, the coach looks for a very slight hip lead, the lifter thinks about driving the hips straight up, and the system stays nicely in balance as the lifter stays "in the hips" all the way up while maintaining a constant back angle until it's time to stand up straight, when you get back to about half-way up.

Related:  The Texas Method

There's no good morning-aspect to this squat if it's done correctly, as fun as it might be to say there is.
The correct squat places the back angle in line with the hip angle for the best use of hip drive during the squat, and places the bar directly over the mid-foot for the most efficient mechanical execution of the movement.
A more horizontal back angle uses both quads and posterior chain to their maximum capacity, while a more vertical back angle restricts the potential of the posterior chain muscle mass to contribute to the movement of the weight.
Get used to the idea that your chest is pointed down when your back is horizontal enough, and that your downward eye-gaze direction anchors the movement. It will speed the process on Saturday morning.

[Aldo Raine]

The Texas Method by Mark Rippetoe

Here's what you need to know...

• Novice lifters are able to make rapid strength gains with simple training and linear progression.
• The more experienced a lifter becomes, the slower his progress. Optimal programming with adequate rest can enable a more seasoned lifter to continue making progress.
• The Texas Method balances the stress of increased weight and varied volume with adequate recovery time so that intermediate lifters will progress for an extended period of time.
• The Texas Method consists of three days a week: Mondays are high volume, Wednesdays are active recovery, and Fridays are high intensity.

Youth And Strength Programing

There are many advantages to being a young man. The problem is that if you're young, you don't know it, and probably won't know it until it's too late to do anything about it.
If I could go back and do it over again, there are several things I'd do differently. I'd spend more time on my calculus homework. I'd drink better beer. I'd spend less time trying to date more women and more time trying to get other things accomplished.
And I'd apply a few simple things I've since learned about training to my own program.
It's obvious now, 35 years removed, that I didn't take advantage of the simple ability a young man has to physically stress himself hard, recover from it relatively easily, and then stress himself again – thus rapidly accumulating the effects of training and recovery in a somewhat linear fashion.
If I had this wisdom back then, I'd have just done a simple program of squats, benches, overhead presses, deadlifts, and cleans, going up a little bit every time I trained, three days per week, until I was much bigger and stronger, or until doing so quit working.
In other words, I would've used the program outlined in my book, Starting Strength, for as long as it delivered consistent, significant results. Please keep in mind that I'm not going to describe a program for beginners in this article; quite the contrary, it's for intermediate to advanced lifters.
However, I need to make some points from Starting Strength.

The Novice Effect

Young men adapt quickly if they're stressed, fed, and rested enough. I learned this simple programming fact from running a gym for decades, showing everybody how to use the barbell exercises and watching what happened to them.
It's called the novice effect: guys who've started out with a simple program, approached it diligently and intelligently, and have gained 30-40 pounds of useful body weight in just a few months while more than doubling their strength and power.

The Novice Effect In Action

The driving force behind the power of the novice effect is simplicity. Trainees added 10 pounds at first, and then 5 pounds to their squat and deadlift every time they trained the exercise.
Similarly, they added 5 pounds at first, and then 1, 2, or 3 pounds to their bench press, overhead press, and power clean every time they trained the exercise.
They didn't do much else in the beginning – no other exercises except chin-ups and maybe some curls. They didn't run, they didn't waste time in front of the dumbbell rack, and they didn't do a bunch of sit-ups, planks or anything with a cable, wobble board, or BOSU ball.
Related:  Who Wants to Be a Novice? You Do.

But the ability to adapt this quickly and this thoroughly doesn't last long and begins to slow down the moment you start to get stronger, imperceptibly at first, and then more rapidly as you approach the limits of your capacity to recover from each increasingly difficult workout.

The Truth About Progress

The rotten, irritating, sorry-ass fact is that as you approach your genetically predetermined physical limitations, it becomes harder to make progress. This is the principle of diminishing returns and we observe this throughout nature and throughout our lives.
The first improvements are easy and cheap, and the more improvement you want, the longer it takes and the more it costs. But if you don't take advantage of the opportunity while you have it, you leave things undone, and perhaps undoable later.
Let's say that you were wise enough to take advantage of your youth and put in five good months of simple linear progression.
You ignored the fools who told you that undulating periodization was the way to go, and you made the best, most rapid, and most important progress you'll ever make in the weight room, and now you're committed enough to the potential of barbell training that you're willing to do the hard work that comes next.

What's Next?

Next comes more progress, of course, but at a slower pace.
You're now strong enough that each workout represents a stress that takes longer to recover from. You're lifting weights that are heavy enough that your increases in load take place every week instead of every workout, three times per week.
This means that progress is one-third the pace it was previously; it also means that it has the potential to occur for a longer period of time, if you're diligent.
Balancing the higher stress of the increasing loads is the fact that not only has your strength improved, but your ability to recover has improved with it so that you can use more tonnage at a higher intensity.
The fact is, it's necessary to subject the body to increasing amounts of stress at a level that challenges recovery ability so that the adaptations continue to occur. But since these are now higher-intensity efforts that more fully tax the system, they require longer periods of recovery.
If we design the program correctly, we can plan workouts that place optimum stress in the optimum pattern to continue the adaptive drive of the program for a long time: A high level of tonnage-stress early in the week, a lighter workout in the middle to aid in recovery, "active rest" it's sometimes called, and then a higher-intensity lower-volume workout at the end of the week.
Stresses of different types and adequate recovery from the stress are in balance if the program is to work for an extended period of time. We call the program The Texas Method, because we are in Texas and it's a Method – a very good one that has proven itself for years.

The Texas Method

In its basic form, the workout consists of a volume day for the major lifts on Monday, a lighter recovery or variety day on Wednesday, and a high-intensity day on Friday for the major lifts. The days can obviously vary based on your schedule, but the pattern of rest days and work days is important.
Monday: Volume Day

A. Squat 5 x 5 @ 90% of 5RM
B. Bench Press or Overhead Press 5 x 5 @ 90% 5RM
C. Deadlift 1 x 5 @ 90% 5RM
Volume 5: Sets of 5 reps across (the same weight repeated for the work sets) has proven to be the optimum combination of volume and intensity.
Higher reps require a weight that's simply too light, while lower reps with a heavier weight don't have optimum volume and cause too much structural stress. Many people have tweaked the sets and reps, and time after time they come back to 5 sets of 5 across as the best driver of long-term progress.
Load: The weight should be such that all five sets of all five reps can be finished without more than 8-10 minutes rest between sets. For most people, this works out to about 90% of 5RM.
For example, if your 5-rep max squat is 345, then 315 x 5 x 5 would be Monday's squat workout. The bench press and the overhead press respond this way also – alternate between one exercise and the other each Monday for 5 x 5 with about 90% of 5RM.

Related:  When it Comes to Squats, Easier Doesn't Work

However, deadlifts are another story. There is no volume day for deadlifts, because deadlifts are too hard. You can't recover from them if you do more than one heavy set. This is especially true if you're doing 5 x 5 squats, too.
Experience with this has shown that it's best to do just one heavy set of five deadlifts on Monday, after squats and benches or overhead presses are finished. It won't be a "true" 5RM, since it follows all the squat work, but it should increase every week.
For those of you keeping score, this makes Monday a real bastard of a workout, and that's the point. It sets up the rest of the week for recovery and a focus on intensity in Friday's workout.
Assistance Work: If it were up to me, I'd limit any assistance exercises to some brief arm work on Monday. I'd also limit any excessive weekend frivolity that might affect the workout, like staying up all night Saturday chasing pussy with your wingman, Jim Beam.
Recovery: It should start right after the last set of the workout. At this level of training intensity, it's imperative that you eat and sleep with both sufficient quality and quantity – The Texas Method will overtrain your ass very quickly if you don't pay attention to recovery.
Remember: You don't get big and strong from lifting weights – you get big and strong from recovering from lifting weights. Don't fail to pay attention to this, or Monday's workout will murder the rest of the week and you'll get stuck.
Wednesday: Recovery Day

A. Squat 2 x 5 @ 80% of Monday's work weight
B. Overhead Press (if you bench pressed Monday) 3 x 5 * or
Bench Press (if OHP on Monday) 3 x 5 @ 90% previous 5 x 5 weight
C. Chin-up 3 x Bodyweight
D. Back Extension or Glute-Ham Raise 5 x 10
* at slightly lighter load than previous OHP weight
Recovery continues with Wednesday's workout. Squats are 80% of Monday's work weight for 2 sets of 5.
Benches and overhead presses alternate: If you did overhead presses on Monday for 5 x 5, benches are done Wednesday with 3 sets of a little lighter weight than the last 5 x 5 bench press so that you can feel the load but not so much that it taps into recovery.
Recovery day overhead presses done on Wednesday are a little heavier, relative to 5RM, than the recovery-day benches, since their absolute load is lighter anyway.
Finish the workout with chin-ups and back extensions. I like 3 sets to failure for chins, with five minutes between sets, and 5 sets of 10 back extensions or glute/ham raises.

Friday: Intensity Day

A. Squat: warm-up, then work up to one single, new 5RM
B. Bench Press, (if you bench pressed Monday) or
Overhead Press (if OHP on Monday): work up to one single, new 5RM
C. Power Clean or Power Snatch: 5 x 3 / 6 x 2
Friday is intensity day. It focuses the tonnage from Monday into a new 5RM, or within 2% of it to allow for training-quality technique.
Do most of your warm-up work light, first with the empty bar and then 135, and then take doubles or singles up to your one work set, the one that should give you a new 5RM.
Make sure that the load is higher than Monday but not so much that form breaks down on the last reps. If it does, you picked the wrong weight.

Friday Options

Since deadlifts were done on Monday, Friday is power clean/power snatch day. The Olympic lifts are the best way to train explosiveness and athleticism under the bar, while allowing you to increase your power in a way that's incrementally programmable.
Dynamic Effort work has become popular as another way to do this, and using explosive deadlifts on Friday would be a way to incorporate DE into the Texas Method, but the Olympic weightlifting-derived power clean and power snatch represents a different level of neuromuscular activity.
Keep in mind that deadlifts are pulled fast because you want to pull them fast; power cleans are pulled fast because you have to pull them fast or they won't rack on the shoulders.
The explosive aspect of a clean is actually minimal since the explosion is inherent in the top of the movement. Cleans and snatches are both lighter and more powerful than deadlifts, and thus are perfect for the Friday workout.

Related:  The Fallacy of High Rep Olympic Lifting

If you want to call yourself a lifter, you need to know how to clean and snatch, even if you don't intend to compete in Olympic weightlifting. After your warm up, do power cleans for 5 sets of 3 reps across, or power snatches for 6 doubles.

Some Notes

• The Texas Method is still very simple in terms of the number of exercises. Actual progress in the weight room is based on an increase in the loading of the basic structural exercises, not in the number of different ways you can perform a triceps press down.
Very few successful lifters or bodybuilders confuse complexity with effectiveness.
• The size and strength gains you'll see on the Texas Method will not be as dramatic as those seen in the novice progression outlined in the introduction because of the fact that the easy gains have already happened. We're further along on the curve here, or we wouldn't be using an intermediate-level program.
If five months of novice progression took you from a 95-pound squat at a bodyweight of 140 to a 315 x 5 squat at a bodyweight of 200, the Texas Method will take you to 405 x 5 squat at a bodyweight of 225 in a year. Not as dramatic by any stretch, but this is fine because you're older now and committed to the project.

A Rap Upside the Head

Your time spent in the gym can be either productive or wasted, and a few seconds spent thinking about this will yield the conclusion that any real progress is a quantifiable improvement in strength.
Strength gains are the basis of an increase in size. In effect, size is a side effect of strength, and an intelligently designed and applied program can drive strength. At any point in your training career, quantifiable progress must be your objective.
It's easy at first when you're a novice to the barbell. The Texas Method is a good way to carry you through the next step: maintaining the trend of handling increasingly heavy weight.
The Texas Method doesn't work forever. Nothing does. But it does work well as your introduction to the more complicated programming necessary to continue strength and size gains into the more advanced stages of strength training.