starting strength observations

[msingh]

With a lot of guys posting logs now there are a few noteworthy things to observe. You can split SS guys into two groups, ones who have trained with weights before and those who havent. The ones who have gymed for a while usually have a decent bench press. The ones who start with SS usually have a modest bench, relatively speaking. This leads to the idea that starting strength has a lower body bias.

The justification for squatting so much more than benching or pressing is that it involves larger muscles and therefore is easier to recover from (the argument goes something like this). So why not deadlift every workout? Because practically speaking you cannot -- and practically speaking you can squat every workout. My point is that the argument is not very sound, not the conclusion.

The other question is whether an ideal prequel for attempting SS involves past experience of a few months of benching (and pressing?) so that by the end of SS you have something resembling a respectable bench press as opposed to a mediocre one.

Before you disagree and say no, consider this. Everyone increases their upperbody strength on SS (bench and press). Those who start with higher numbers prior to SS end up with even higher numbers. Doesn't this logically mean that SS leaves behind some potential progress on the bench that could be eeked out of the trainee while he is still a novice?

If you argue that this is an acceptable tradoff (squat bias over upperbody strength), that's one thing, but the fact is such a tradeoff is always in effect. For instance, we squat first, then bench or press second. An upperbody biased novice program would probably NOT work the same way.

Thoughts?

[stronger]

I don't see what's hard to believe or wrong with the fact that people who had weight training experience before SS might have a higher bench than those who had no experience.

I also don't see any evidence that this is, on average true ^

the Deadlift is done every session for several weeks at the beginning, as detailed in PP2

[pauld]

Ummm, nope.

The challenge for you is to come up with some program where a novice's bench and press increase by more than 15 lbs. every 2 weeks, which is what you get if you start on SS right away as a novice without messing with some other program.

And even if you could, why do it when you could add to your press/bench while also getting an increase of 30 lbs on the squat, 15-30 on deadlift, and 15 on the power clean over those same 2 weeks?

I would go directly into SS. And I bet there are few or no programs that could beat it in a sustainable fashion.

[Platus]

So why not deadlift every workout?Because deadlifts start from a dead stop and are therefore more difficult than lifts that contain both an eccentric and concentric movement.


The other question is whether an ideal prequel for attempting SS involves past experience of a few months of benching (and pressing?) so that by the end of SS you have something resembling a respectable bench press as opposed to a mediocre one.The point is not to have a respectable bench vs. a mediocre one but to make increases in strength. SS seems to do this more quickly than most other novice programs, so why would you need to do a less efficacious program first? What would work better?



but the fact is such a tradeoff is always in effectI doubt that it is ALWAYS in effect. We would need to test tons of people to see if squatting negatively affects increases in pressing movements, but I doubt it would do so for novices. For an athlete who is specializing on a movement and putting tons of volume into one lift, there may eventually be a tradeoff.

[msingh]

You are arguing that doing SS first is the way to go. But the fact is most guys who do SS first still end up with a mediocre bench. You might have a big deadlift and squat but a weak press and bench if you do the program as your first novice program. Whereas we get plenty of stories of guys who have trained for years doing bodybuilding style routines who then do SS and end up with a big squat, deadlift ... and respectable bench and press.

A guy with a decent press and bench to go with his deadlift and squat is STRONG. a guy with a weak bench and press is weak no matter what his squat and deadlift. IMHO.

[stronger]

But the fact is most guys who do SS first still end up with a mediocre bench.

where is the evidence for this?

[msingh]

where is the evidence for this?

I dont care to convince you man. I dont care what you believe or not, im describing what i've observed from reading logs and posts on this forum over time. I'm not going to go do a scientific study just so I can convince you this is what happens on SS, it doesnt matter that much to me dude.

[stronger]

I dont care to convince you man. I dont care what you believe or not, im describing what i've observed from reading logs and posts on this forum over time. I'm not going to go do a scientific study just so I can convince you this is what happens on SS, it doesnt matter that much to me dude.

if you could reference just a couple of these logs and posts, that'd be great.

You obviously care enough to make a post about it. Maybe it's just that the press and bench are weak lifts compared to the squat and deadlift and they're much easier to get stuck in

[msingh]

http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=12359 (one example of previous bench prowess, he starts with 70kg and 2 weeks later benches like 85 kg).

now pick mr city or somoene squatting 300lb and pressing 40kg or something like that.

there are plenty of other examples around though, these are just two i plucked out at a glance.

[banthafodder]

I'd submit that the design of the human body itself is biased toward lower body strength, and SS doesn't cause it so much as reveal it.

[misspelledgeoff]

what would you consider a mediocre versus strong bench press and press at the end of SS? not asking to cite logs, just your general feel having been on this board for awhile.

you have a point in the squat bias of SS. simply by mandating that squats come first in the workout, you give it priority in the competition for scarce resources (namely energy).

[tescott]

A few thoughts:

1) SS has a trainee squatting 3x a week, pressing 3x a week, pulling from the floor 3x a fortnight, and pull ups 3x a fortnight. Add to this that squats and pulls utilise the whole body, while presses and pull ups mostly only use the upper body, thus SS trains the upper body to some extent with every exercise. I fail to see how this is a lower body bias.

2) What do you mean by 'will end up with a bigger bench'? Anyone who does the program increases the weight on their lifts from a particular starting point. If you begin with a bigger bench, then after a set period of time, you will end with a bigger bench. However, if you take the linear progression to completion, your bench would be the same regardless of whether you had a big bench to begin with or not.

3) Do you know of a faster way to increase bench and press than SS? If so, maybe you could tell us what it is and incorporate it into your own version of SS. If not, then what other choice do you have?

4) If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that a better way is to do 'bodybuilding style routines' 'for years', and then do SS (a total of years + maybe 2 months of SS). This is in contrast to initally doing SS, which would last for a few months more, and end up with the same strength result (a total of 3-9 months). I know what I'd choose.

[Raskolnikov]

Let me get this straight...

Lifter A has a background in lifting prior to SS.

Lifter B has none prior to SS.

Lifter A has a relatively bigger bench than lifter B.

So, SS must not be well suited to building a big bench press.

That's your argument?

This is just a thought, but isn't it more likely lifter A has simply spent more time benching than lifter B, and so has a bigger bench press?

As has been mentioned, if you want to judge the efficacy of SS at building the bench press, then you should probably be comparing two people with the same amount of gym time. Take two novices, lifter A spends two months on SS, while lifter B spends two months on "x." That would be a valid comparison...

[msingh]

A guy is a novice until he can't do linear progress on squat any longer at which stage he becomes an intermediate. It doesn't matter about upper body lifts, you keep benching and pressing throughout as per program, it's squats which determine your level of training.

My argument is that in that window of being a starting strength novice, the guy who enters with a bigger bench often emerges with a much bigger bench than a guy who begins with a completely untrained bench. What does this tell you? That starting strength is a program biased for and designed to quickly and efficiently extract linear progression gains on the squat for a trainee. It does this job very well indeed. No question about it.

I'm not saying I know of a better program which will achieve a)maximal LP squat gains) b)maximal DL gains, c)maximal press and d)maximal bench gains on the same program. I dont think such a program exists. You make a tradeoff, and starting strength picks lowerbody strength. Now that doesn't mean that you couldn't work on your upperbody strength by doing a workout biased for pressing and benching for a few months then doing starting strength and truly realising ALL novice LP gains possible across the board for all lifts. Which is what happens in reality.

And no i'm not arguing doing a bodybuilding program for several years first! But that some people have done that so it shows it's definitely possible to enter SS with modest bench/press work and leave with a maximal squat and bench at the end of it.

[knox]

The beauty of SS is that it facilitates strength balance. Someone who has trained the bench press prior to starting SS will not be able to improve linearly on this exercise as quickly or for as long as someone who has not trained the exercise before, and over the course of the program their bench press balances out with the rest of their lifts.

Saying that SS has a strength bias towards the lower body is twisting reality a bit. Truth is, your body's strength has a bias towards the lower body. Your legs are designed to generate more strength and power than your upper body, and proper strength training has to reflect this. As stated in SSBBT, a person with balanced strength will be able to perform the barbell exercises in the following order, from strongest lift to weakest: deadlift > squat > power clean > bench > press. If a program causes a lifter's strength to be distributed differently than this, the program is biased. Otherwise, it simply reflects normal physiological function (i.e. SS).

Also: the majority of SS trainees who finish the novice program do not have weak bench presses. Just because a few of the logs on this site have people with relatively weaker bench presses does not mean that SS doesn't focus on the bench enough. Make sure you read exactly why these people have weaker bench presses, and also pay attention to the fact that this is not the case for the vast majority of trainees who finish the novice progression.

[Raskolnikov]

My argument is that in that window of being a starting strength novice, the guy who enters with a bigger bench often emerges with a much bigger bench than a guy who begins with a completely untrained bench. What does this tell you? That starting strength is a program biased for and designed to quickly and efficiently extract linear progression gains on the squat for a trainee. It does this job very well indeed. No question about it.

What does it tell me? -- That the guy with the bigger bench has spent more time benching. It doesn't say a god damn thing about SS.

Forgive my misuse of the word "novice," but I meant it in reference to someone who hasn't trained before. My point: you are comparing two people with different levels of experience, so it should come as no surprise that one has a bigger bench than the other, especially considering the inordinate amount of time the average gym rat spends benching. One guy has simply spent more time benching than the other. So, again, you need to compare two people with the same amount of time under the bar. The only difference being one has been following SS while the other has been following the typical body part split practiced by the average gym rat.

Given the above scenario, who has a bigger bench press?

[Mr.City]

http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=12359 (one example of previous bench prowess, he starts with 70kg and 2 weeks later benches like 85 kg).

now pick mr city or somoene squatting 300lb and pressing 40kg or something like that.

there are plenty of other examples around though, these are just two i plucked out at a glance.

I know my press is lacking, but it's not that bad. 40 kg =88 lbs.


Before you disagree and say no, consider this. Everyone increases their upperbody strength on SS (bench and press). Those who start with higher numbers prior to SS end up with even higher numbers. Doesn't this logically mean that SS leaves behind some potential progress on the bench that could be eeked out of the trainee while he is still a novice?



How do you come to that conclusion? The less conditioned you are, the faster your gains will be at first. If you're comparing those who have had experience lifting weights versus those who don't, it would be useful to compare factors like body weight.



If you argue that this is an acceptable tradoff (squat bias over upperbody strength), that's one thing, but the fact is such a tradeoff is always in effect. For instance, we squat first, then bench or press second. An upperbody biased novice program would probably NOT work the same way.

What trade-off? The muscle involved in the squat become stronger much more quickly than those used in the bench or press. An upper body program would not work in the same way because they wouldn't be any deadlifts or squats. Wait, are you saying that my squat strength wouldn't improve on an upper body program?

[msingh]

Ok i have a theory. It could be completely off but it's based on my own experience. It's exceedingly difficult to maintain linear progression on upperbody lifts. You can get a run of 2-3 weeks where you hit the weight every workout and then bar speed slows to a crawl, a stall lingers on the next workout. This is what happens to me anyway. It might not to you, or someone else. So the sort of real world training I do with my bench and press isnt technically linear progression anyway. It's more like linear-reset progression. And before you ask about microloading, yes.

In the real world while every SS workout will have you squatting, even one missed workout will set you back on your upper body lifts, whereas squat progression is relatively unaffacted. If you miss a bench workout on bench week (benching twice that week), you'll only have one workout that week, and you had one workout the previous week, one workout the following week. Not nearly enough work to cause progress. Even when you're dedicated and dont miss any workouts, you only have 6 bench workouts a month, compared to 12 for squats. Obviously you'll make quicker progress on squats than on bench from this fact alone.

Its easy to progress on squats in a week or two even if you miss a workout or two. It's really hard to make progress, real solid progress on upper body lifts if you miss any workouts. My experience YMMV.

[strongdaniel]

Ok i have a theory. It could be completely off but it's based on my own experience. It's exceedingly difficult to maintain linear progression on upperbody lifts. You can get a run of 2-3 weeks where you hit the weight every workout and then bar speed slows to a crawl, a stall lingers on the next workout. This is what happens to me anyway. It might not to you, or someone else. So the sort of real world training I do with my bench and press isnt technically linear progression anyway. It's more like linear-reset progression. And before you ask about microloading, yes.

In the real world while every SS workout will have you squatting, even one missed workout will set you back on your upper body lifts, whereas squat progression is relatively unaffacted. If you miss a bench workout on bench week (benching twice that week), you'll only have one workout that week, and you had one workout the previous week, one workout the following week. Not nearly enough work to cause progress. Even when you're dedicated and dont miss any workouts, you only have 6 bench workouts a month, compared to 12 for squats. Obviously you'll make quicker progress on squats than on bench from this fact alone.

Its easy to progress on squats in a week or two even if you miss a workout or two. It's really hard to make progress, real solid progress on upper body lifts if you miss any workouts. My experience YMMV.

In starting strength, you are doing a pressing excursive EVERY SINGLE WORK OUT. Let me repeat this. In starting strength: ONE PRESSES JUST AS OFTEN AS THEY SQUAT.

[Mr.City]

Of course you're not going to progress if you're missing workouts. Also, why are you stalling in 2-3 weeks?

[coldfire]

And we are back to this post: http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showpost.php?p=83270&postcount=24

[confuzzl3don3]

I agree with Raskolnikov. Since the people who have been previously training to mostly increase their upperbody (bench and press) strength, then who says that if you complete SS then focus on the upperbody, you could achieve the same amount of gains in a shorter timeframe or even surpass such gains.

[mrflibble]

even one missed workout will set you back.

Missing work outs will set you back? No kidding!

Your comments in this thread are so full of shit I find it hard to believe you're being serious.

First you say because someone who has spent years more benching has a higher bench than a beginner, means SS is flawed .. and now you add skipping work outs as further evidence of the flaws in SS? Fuck, I bet SS is so flawed that it doesn't work if all you do is read the book and don't lift!

Really, this is just another sad example in your trend of blaming Rip for your own inability to follow the program correctly.

[tennisgod]

msingh isn't blaming Rip... He's just testing the validity of the program and asking you all for help. Seems reasonable to me.

[knox]

msingh isn't blaming Rip... He's just testing the validity of the program and asking you all for help. Seems reasonable to me.

No. He's trying to justify the fact that the program hasn't worked for him by blaming it on the program itself instead of accepting that he didn't do it correctly. If you read through his posts, you will notice that he lacks an understanding of the fundamental principles expressed in SS:BBT. You can defend him all you want, but there is a very definite reason that tempers flare every time he posts.

[DeepBlue]

Just do the microloading OK? Do 1/2kg 1lb if you have to.

Jeez. If you cut the increases sooner you'd manage them.

As ever, DO THE PROGRAM.

[tescott]

If you read through his posts, you will notice that he lacks an understanding of the fundamental principles expressed in SS:BBT

+1


A guy is a novice until he can't do linear progress on squat any longer at which stage he becomes an intermediate. It doesn't matter about upper body lifts, you keep benching and pressing throughout as per program, it's squats which determine your level of training.

Get this man a copy of PP! Stat!

[nisora33]

Yeah, msingh, I'm getting the impression that you haven't read Practical Programming or at least haven't read it very well. Had you, I don't think this thread would even exist. Consider what you say here:

It doesn't matter about upper body lifts, you keep benching and pressing throughout as per program, it's squats which determine your level of training.

Wrong. Squats do not determine your status. You can have an intermediate bench or press but be a "novice" in the squat. This is explained in PP and has been explained numerous times by Rip on this board. You're making yourself look like a fool.

When you're presented with a set of data, and you attempt to explain the data, then as a repsonsible scientist and thinker you're obligated to explore not only one theory, but multiple theories, and the one with the most explanatory power that takes into account all of the facts is the one that you go with. Yours is only one theory, and not the most likely one, in my opinion.

You have a genetic upper limit to your strength. Think of it as a ceiling, the closer to which you get, the slower your progress becomes. Someone with a moderately impressive bench at the beginning of SS will have an even bigger one by the end of their novice phase, true. However, their gains will have come much more slowly than those of the novice whose bench pressing strength was farther away from his or her genetic "ceiling." Both the inexperienced and relatively experienced bench pressers will have a stronger bench by the end of SS novice programming. Sure, the more experienced presser's will be larger, but why is this such a revelation to you, msingh?

-Stacey

[stronger]

No. He's trying to justify the fact that the program hasn't worked for him by blaming it on the program itself instead of accepting that he didn't do it correctly. If you read through his posts, you will notice that he lacks an understanding of the fundamental principles expressed in SS:BBT. You can defend him all you want, but there is a very definite reason that tempers flare every time he posts.

this ^

I'm all for a cogent criticism, but he fails to understand pretty basic facts about the program, and I think he's looking for confirmation that his lack of progress is normal.

[Gary Gibson]

Yeah, msingh, I'm getting the impression that you haven't read Practical Programming or at least haven't read it very well. Had you, I don't think this thread would even exist. Consider what you say here:

It doesn't matter about upper body lifts, you keep benching and pressing throughout as per program, it's squats which determine your level of training.

Wrong. Squats do not determine your status. You can have an intermediate bench or press but be a "novice" in the squat. This is explained in PP and has been explained numerous times by Rip on this board. You're making yourself look like a fool.

When you're presented with a set of data, and you attempt to explain the data, then as a repsonsible scientist and thinker you're obligated to explore not only one theory, but multiple theories, and the one with the most explanatory power that takes into account all of the facts is the one that you go with. Yours is only one theory, and not the most likely one, in my opinion.

You have a genetic upper limit to your strength. Think of it as a ceiling, the closer to which you get, the slower your progress becomes. Someone with a moderately impressive bench at the beginning of SS will have an even bigger one by the end of their novice phase, true. However, their gains will have come much more slowly than those of the novice whose bench pressing strength was farther away from his or her genetic "ceiling." Both the inexperienced and relatively experienced bench pressers will have a stronger bench by the end of SS novice programming. Sure, the more experienced presser's will be larger, but why is this such a revelation to you, msingh?

-Stacey

Good post. Well said.

msingh, how about some numbers to help me understand? You said one needs all three lifts to be strong and that SS leads to squat and deadlift overpowering the bench. What's a "balanced" bench against a squat in your mind?

[Paul Sousa]

msingh, the squat does not dictate whether you leave linear progression on other lifts. If you reach the intermediate level on your squat before other lifts than you change your programming so that you squat as an intermediate should, but still do the other lifts as a novice should.

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

Hi Msingh,


With a lot of guys posting logs now there are a few noteworthy things to observe. You can split SS guys into two groups, ones who have trained with weights before and those who havent. The ones who have gymed for a while usually have a decent bench press. The ones who start with SS usually have a modest bench, relatively speaking. This leads to the idea that starting strength has a lower body bias.


I think your conclusion is flawed here, and could have an alternative explaination. For example, if you look into a typical BB-style gym (I use BB in a loose sense here) you will probably see a lot of people benching, but very few people squatting.
So a person who begins SS with a previous experience of weight training has probably gained a lot of strength on the bench, but their strength on the other SS lifts will be negligible.

At the end of the novice phase of SS, their bench will have increased further, and will look relatively big compared to the other lifts.
Now take someone of similar genetic potential, but who has never trained with weights. I think it's reasonable to assume that their progress on all lifts will be roughly the same as the first person, but their bench will lag behind.

This is not a result of SS bias toward lower body strength, but a reflection of the longer time that the first person spent training one, and only one, particular lift, which happens to be included in SS.

IPB

[TomF]

FWIW, once I got some big 2" washers so I could microload my bench and shoulder presses by adding as little as #1 to the bar at a time, I found that linear progression continued longer than with my squat or deadlift. Of course, before I purchased the neccasaries for microloading, my bench and shoulder presses stalled frequently, pretty much like the OP's described. Especially when I didn't eat or sleep enough, and didn't drink my milk.

To me, that argues that msingh's pressing increments are too high to sustain linear progress, or he's not paying enough attention to recovery. That is, that he's not doing the program.

I find it terribly unsurprising that when the bench press is the single most popular exercise in weight rooms, that people who've trained at all tend to come into SS with a higher bench ... and leave with a higher bench ... than an untrained person. Presumably, "proportionate" strength would look more like what emerges when you train equally hard at each of the lifts from the get-go.

[Gary Gibson]

Emphasis mine.


..."proportionate" strength would look more like what emerges when you train equally hard at each of the lifts from the get-go.

Hallelujah and amen.

[matclone]

Thoughts?

I think you should stop bullshitting. I assumed previously that you were sincere in your questions, but posts like yours here indicate that you're not.



You can split SS guys into two groups, ones who have trained with weights before and those who havent.

Why would you?



The ones who have gymed for a while usually have a decent bench press. The ones who start with SS usually have a modest bench, relatively speaking.

Unsupported conclusion. You have no reasonable evidence for this, as someone has already pointed out.



This leads to the idea that starting strength has a lower body bias.

No, it doesn't--even if we were to accept your original usupported premise.



The justification for squatting so much more than benching or pressing is that it involves larger muscles and therefore is easier to recover from (the argument goes something like this).

I've not read any justification or argument like this in Starting Strength--which gives specific reasons for alternating benching and pressing that have nothing to do with recovery. Again, you set up an argument with an unsupported premise. A variation on the straw man. Have you been listening to talk radio?



The other question is whether an ideal prequel for attempting SS involves past experience of a few months of benching (and pressing?) so that by the end of SS you have something resembling a respectable bench press as opposed to a mediocre one.

There is no prequel to Starting Strength other than being healthy enough to exercise.

As someone mentioned, you have not defined or attempted to qualify in any way "respectable" or "mediocre" or "decent" or "modest".


Before you disagree and say no, consider this. Everyone increases their upperbody strength on SS (bench and press). Those who start with higher numbers prior to SS end up with even higher numbers. Doesn't this logically mean that SS leaves behind some potential progress on the bench that could be eeked out of the trainee while he is still a novice?

No, it does not follow.


If you argue that this is an acceptable tradoff (squat bias over upperbody strength), that's one thing, but the fact is such a tradeoff is always in effect.

Fact not established.

You seem to imply that Starting Strength somehow gives short shrift to upperbody strength, but you've given no reasonable argument for this. Short-cutting progress in any of the lifts is not part of the program. However, if you really think so, you should be able to figure out what to do other than antagonizing the good posters of this forum.

[blowdpanis]

You are arguing that doing SS first is the way to go. But the fact is most guys who do SS first still end up with a mediocre bench. You might have a big deadlift and squat but a weak press and bench if you do the program as your first novice program. Whereas we get plenty of stories of guys who have trained for years doing bodybuilding style routines who then do SS and end up with a big squat, deadlift ... and respectable bench and press.

A guy with a decent press and bench to go with his deadlift and squat is STRONG. a guy with a weak bench and press is weak no matter what his squat and deadlift. IMHO.

Have you considered the possibility that people are usually only doing SS for < 1 year, and that, relatively speaking, squat and deadlift potential for strength increases are dramatically higher than the bench or press?

Of course people often come in with bigger benches with "other" routines they've done for years...because they've been lifting for years, and most people overfocus on the bench. How this implies SS is not properly training the bench or press for a beginner is pretty baffling.

edit: just read the rest of this thread. I am having a hard time believing the OP isn't just trolling, because if he's not, his lack of logic/reasoning is just frightening.

[bugbomb]

Yeah, the wrongest of all the wrong things here was the idea that when you reach the end of your novice progression in the squat, you're done with the novice progression in other lifts as well. If you can purge that idea from your mental framework, I think you might be ok.

It is perfectly acceptable to truly reach the end of the novice phase in one lift, yet continue with a linear progression for a while longer in others.

[stronger]

He's not trolling, he's just positing something that most people find unreasonable.

[George Noble]

He's not trolling, he's just positing something that most people find unreasonable.
Because it's based on a premise that is a load of bollocks.

[msingh]

Because it's based on a premise that is a load of bollocks.

What's your experience with starting strength?

[George Noble]

What's your experience with starting strength?
My experience is completely irrelevant, because your argument is based on the premise that the squat is the sole determinant of training progression, and bench cannot be programmed independantly. Since this premise is blown out of the water by the posts here, Rip's posts, PPST, all training literature ever and the general ability to think, I don't need to have experienced anything to know that you are talking utter arse gravy.

But for what it's worth, I think that bench gains will come slower on any balanced program.

[msingh]

My experience is completely irrelevant, because your argument is based on the premise that the squat is the sole determinant of training progression, and bench cannot be programmed independantly. Since this premise is blown out of the water by the posts here, Rip's posts, PPST, all training literature ever and the general ability to think, I don't need to have experienced anything to know that you are talking utter arse gravy.

But for what it's worth, I think that bench gains will come slower on any balanced program.

In other words 'no i've never done starting strength so i dont know what i'm talking about'

[msingh]

Wrong. Squats do not determine your status. You can have an intermediate bench or press but be a "novice" in the squat. This is explained in PP and has been explained numerous times by Rip on this board. You're making yourself look like a fool.

Yes they do. Effectively they do. Starting strength is a squatting program. It's the main lift, it gets most of the attention. Squatting is what we argue about 90% of the time. Deadlifts are hard and straightforward no one cares -- pick up a barbell, put it down, bench and press never seem to get any attention. And cleans? Many people dont even do them because there are not essential to starting strength. If you're doing LP on squats you're still a novice. That's a normative rule -- it's not hard and fast. It applies ALMOST ALWAYS in practice. do you understand such a subtle distinction?

My argument is this, please pay attention, guys who have prior experience will work up decent squats while doing starting strength and have big benches. how big? Close to 300 lb, maybe less, maybe more, give or take 20-50 lb. These guys almost ALWAYS have prior bench experience, even if they start off squatting in SS around 130 lb, like every one else. Nevertheless, these gentlemen are able to do linear progression on the bench press even with their prior experience with the exercise. Effectively they are doing LP on bench even though they've benched before. I repeat. They are able to maintain LP on the bench for the duration of the novice phase (which here is defined as long as squats are increasing in a linear fashion). Yes they might microload and reset regularly, but that's ok, it's accepted by nearly everyone.

[George Noble]

In other words 'no i've never done starting strength so i dont know what i'm talking about'
I did a rather nasty approximation of the program when I was young(er) and stupid(er), didn't eat much and switched programs very early. Moreover you are full of shit if you are calling out my experience because I am about 15 kg lighter than you and bench what you squat even before I put on my shirt. I have an abysmal raw bench so that isn't saying much except that you totally suck.

OK, it won't let me just copy and paste my log without reading it, which is a shame because I'd rather you did the donkey work.
Squat 3x5 - 82.5 kg on 14/01/08 ; 102.5 kg on 08/02/08
Bench 3x5 - 52.5 kg on 14/01/08 ; 62.5 kg on 11/02/08 for a 4 and a single, 57.5 for 3x5 a few workouts earlier.

Can't be arsed to compare other lifts.

So we can infer:
1. I sucked, possibly as much as you. But since I was 70 kg soaking wet, probably not.
2. Benching moves slower. If you declare victory from this, you are a moron. You might be a moron anyway, mind.
3. Benching is more sensitive to bodyweight. This has been my experience throughout my training, and reinforced here - I didn't gain weight, so my bench didn't go very far.

So aside from squatting your almost-bodyweight and having a weak bench in comparion to that, what is your experience?

[nisora33]

My argument is this, please pay attention, guys who have prior experience will work up decent squats while doing starting strength and have big benches. how big? Close to 300 lb, maybe less, maybe more, give or take 20-50 lb. These guys almost ALWAYS have prior bench experience, even if they start off squatting in SS around 130 lb, like every one else. Nevertheless, these gentlemen are able to do linear progression on the bench press even with their prior experience with the exercise.

This is patently false. The closer a lift is to your genetic potential, the slower the progress will be on that lift. The bench and press slow and begin to stall far, far before the squat and dead, IF the squat and dead are trained as hard and as consistently as the bench and press. FACT.

This has been my experience, my trainees' experience, Rip's experience--who, Goddamnit, has been at this since before you were born--and the experience of just about anyone who has done this program correctly. You could not make a more erroneous statement.



Effectively they are doing LP on bench even though they've benched before. I repeat. They are able to maintain LP on the bench for the duration of the novice phase (which here is defined as long as squats are increasing in a linear fashion). Yes they might microload and reset regularly, but that's ok, it's accepted by nearly everyone.

Wrong, as stated prior. If you're going to insist on stating utter falsities, then this conversation is through.

Ladies and gents, chime in.

-Stacey

[msingh]

Nisora, have you watched AC bench 135 kg for 3x5? Do you think he started benching 40 kg like a complete novice? Have you read kitten puppy's log? He's not benching 120 kg or whatever it is by starting as a complete starting strength novice. Now show me a guy who has started benching on SS only and worked up numbers above 100kg in the time it takes him to get a 300+ squat and exhaust linear progression. There is your challenge, you fuckwit.

Noble, I dont care man, I have better things to do than argue with people who can't be civil or advance a counterargument instead of a personal attack. I'll make this my last post on this board.

Mad, do you realise there is a version of SS (go read the wiki) which doesn't include cleans?

[George Noble]

I dont care man, I have better things to do than argue with people who can't be civil or advance a counterargument instead of a personal attack. I'll make this my last post on this board.
Are you leaving because of me or Stacey?

And is there a prize for whoever it was?

[MAD9692]

Squatting only program??? We talk about the squats the most because its technically the most difficult to get right.
Most people arent doing the cleans??? WTF? If you arent doing the cleans then you arent doing the program.
not for nothing dude but you just need to stfu and train. stop thinking and questioning dumb shit and stop wasting your time on the internet until you spent a few years under the bar. Everything will work out fine.
I think everyone is starting to believe you are a troll.

[hatmanii]

There is your challenge, you fuckwit.

I have better things to do than argue with people who can't be civil or advance a counterargument instead of a personal attack.

Strong hypocrisy here.

[hatmanii]

I'll make this my last post on this board.

When and where is the party, and should I bring beer?

Fuck it, I'm bringing beer anyways.

[nisora33]

Now show me a guy who has started benching on SS only and worked up numbers above 100kg in the time it takes him to get a 300+ squat and exhaust linear progression. There is your challenge, you fuckwit.


msingh, when in the hell, exactly, did I personally attack you to justify what you just typed at me?

The difference between the guy who got 260 lbs or more some time after doing SS and the guy who only managed 225-ish is the amount of time the former has been practicing his bench. If said guy has been benching on and off since he was in high school with mild success, and then begins seriously training his bench in a systematic, progressive manner with SS, this would account for his (apparently) superior success. Time and practice are the distinguishing factors.

But because he's already nearer his genetic potential on the bench versus the squat, like most guys, who are obsessed with their pecs, he will make slower progress on the bench, stall more often and have to wring out any little drop of progress he can make on it, while his squat appears to soar ahead, slowing much later. All of this is, of course, if he follows the program to the letter.

And if you're honestly saying that it is possible for someone already relatively closer to their genetic upper limit on their bench to make steady linear progress that in any way compares to that of their squat, which is already much farther away from their genetic upper limit (due to lack of practice), then I would contend that you've cherry-picked your examples or your pulling all of this out of your ass. Because I, and literally just about everyone who has ever trained themselves or coached anyone else appropriately, will have made these same observations, as will Rip and coaches too numerous to count even on yours and mine and the next guys hands and feet.

[Chewie_jrc]

msingh...you made ANOTHER thread? Please....just stop...seriously.

We need to agree to stop feeding this troll and ignore the rest of his threads/posts. I mean, it was kinda funny and entertaining at first to watch him make an idiot of himself but now it's just getting old. He obviously has not read (or does not understand) the ideas explained in SS and PPST. The amount of time he spends posting stupid shit could be spent lifting, eating, or resting. Just sayin....

EDIT: Didn't see this before....but hopefully it's true:

...
Noble, I dont care man, I have better things to do than argue with people who can't be civil or advance a counterargument instead of a personal attack. I'll make this my last post on this board.
...

[Raskolnikov]

Nisora, have you watched AC bench 135 kg for 3x5? Do you think he started benching 40 kg like a complete novice? Have you read kitten puppy's log? He's not benching 120 kg or whatever it is by starting as a complete starting strength novice. Now show me a guy who has started benching on SS only and worked up numbers above 100kg in the time it takes him to get a 300+ squat and exhaust linear progression.


Doesn't AC also squat around 500 for 5, and doesn't KittenSmash (which is to whom I assume you are referring) squat 405 for 3 sets of 5? Those ratios seem about right to me: bench is about 150 to 200 lbs less than the squat in both cases, or about 3/5. What's extreme about that? And what's the average ratio for someone on SS, out of curiosity? If you want to prove your point, find some examples of guys with similar squat numbers and comparably shitty bench numbers. Just throwing out some high bench #s belonging to guys still on linear progression doesn't mean shit if they also have huge squat #s to go with them.

[coldfire]

EDIT: Didn't see this before....but hopefully it's true:

He lied.

[Gary Gibson]

We need to agree to stop feeding this troll and ignore the rest of his threads/posts. I mean, it was kinda funny and entertaining at first to watch him make an idiot of himself but now it's just getting old. He obviously has not read (or does not understand) the ideas explained in SS and PPST. The amount of time he spends posting stupid shit could be spent lifting, eating, or resting. Just sayin....

I think this is exactly right. Every time I see a singh post, however, I know someone is going to take the bait.

Even if he's not a troll who gets his jollies from provoking this board, he is still not here for help, just to vent about his failures and to get attention (not an uncommon thing on the internet).

I wonder if it's possible for there not to be a single respone--or even a single viewing!--of his next post.

[tescott]

Now show me a guy who has started benching on SS only and worked up numbers above 100kg in the time it takes him to get a 300+ squat and exhaust linear progression. There is your challenge, you fuckwit.

I have developed my strength only using SS. I crossfitted at various points, but that had me benching FAR less than SS does, and squatting more than I benched. Plus, my strength took a serious hit.

2 workouts ago, I squatted 137.5kg 3x5 (303lb), and 140kg (308lb) the workout after that. This qualifies me for a 300+ squat, and I have not exhausted linear progression by any stretch. That same workout, I benched 98.5kg 3x5, and I expect to hit 100kg in two more workouts.

Admittedly, my squat could potentially be higher, and closer to linear progression exhaustion if not for form issues.

[mrflibble]

Even if he's not a troll who gets his jollies from provoking this board, he is still not here for help, just to vent about his failures and to get attention (not an uncommon thing on the internet)

Couldn't agree more.

As of now, he has 138 posts on this forum and has started 14 threads. I can't recall a single post of his which was framed in a positive light. Most seem to be finding excuses to blame Rip or SS for his own inability to understand and perform the program correctly.

I see those 138 posts as 138 opportunities he's had to post a video for a form critique but has chosen not to do so. This is quite revealing considering his constant claims the program isn't working. I'd love to hear his reasons for this. Might be good for a laugh.

Based on his post history, I have my doubts msingh has ever read SS and I'm starting to doubt he's ever even laid hands on a barbell. Could explain the lack of form check videos :)

[Sami]

I'll make this my last post on this board.

http://haikugirl.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/450election_cantwell_fingers.jpg

[Benthic]

<snip>
We need to agree to stop feeding this troll and ignore the rest of his threads/posts.
<snip>


<snip>
I wonder if it's possible for there not to be a single respone--or even a single viewing!--of his next post.

Everyone knows about the "Ignore List" feature of vBulletin, right? You'd never have to read another of his posts again...

Brian

[George Noble]

I just want everyone to remember that my post made him leave.

[Sami]

I just want everyone to remember that my post made him leave.

http://kdfblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/celebrate1.jpg

[ZKP]

The reason squats are emphasized is because they do a lot more systemically than just make your legs strong. Before I'm called a squat zealot (well, ok call me that) just remember your physiology and how horomones work. i'm not making this up and it's not really an opinion. Squats make everything else big and strong along with the legs because of the systemic weight gain they induce. Why do you think it's called a muscular system. it's connected. You simply DO NOT see men with four to five hundred pound squats who are weak in their upper bodies. They may not excell based on genetic factors, or if they undertrain their upper torso,but they will have equitable relative strength if they bench/press along with the squatting. You want big and powerfull arms? Get a big shoulder girdle. You want a big shoulder girdle? Get a big strong trunk and pelvic girdle. And to get that Squat untill you can put hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pounds more than you weigh on your back. This is how human bodies seem to work and have worked since Milo. SS emphasizes muscle groups that make you strong. If it doesnt work, you're doing something wrong or you're not a human. Lets find out what you're doing wrong and fix that rather than argue about methods that have always worked...

[Gary Gibson]

The reason squats are emphasized is because they do a lot more systemically than just make your legs strong. Before I'm called a squat zealot (well, ok call me that) just remember your physiology and how horomones work. i'm not making this up and it's not really an opinion. Squats make everything else big and strong along with the legs because of the systemic weight gain they induce. Why do you think it's called a muscular system. it's connected. You simply DO NOT see men with four to five hundred pound squats who are weak in their upper bodies. They may not excell based on genetic factors, or if they undertrain their upper torso,but they will have equitable relative strength if they bench/press along with the squatting. You want big and powerfull arms? Get a big shoulder girdle. You want a big shoulder girdle? Get a big strong trunk and pelvic girdle. And to get that Squat untill you can put hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pounds more than you weigh on your back. This is how human bodies seem to work and have worked since Milo. SS emphasizes muscle groups that make you strong. If it doesnt work, you're doing something wrong or you're not a human. Lets find out what you're doing wrong and fix that rather than argue about methods that have always worked...

Very well put.

This is just the way it works. If you want to be as big and strong as you possibly can, then you have to squat. If you don't want to squat, then just admit, but don't pretend that you can get as big and strong as possible without back squatting.

You can be big (bodybuild, substitute the leg press, etc) and you can be strong (deadlift, press, etc), but to be as much of both as is within your genetic capacity, then you have to squat.

This isn't religion. It's science and it's backed up by millions of examples. No matter your starting point, heavy back squats make you bigger and stronger in a way that no other movement can. People have tried to replace them with leg presses and deadlifts (as I alluded to above) and the results just are never the same. Neither leg presses nor deadlifts load the skeletomuscular system the way back squats do...so SURPRISE they don't produce the effects that back squat do.

I and a few other people on this board have reported how upping our squats makes everything--even upper body lifts--go up. If you don't back squat, you're limiting you progress. Call it religious dogma if you want. To me it's about as religious as belief in a round earth that circles the sun.

...but were we still talking about msingh?

[StrongIslander,NY]

You are arguing that doing SS first is the way to go. But the fact is most guys who do SS first still end up with a mediocre bench. You might have a big deadlift and squat but a weak press and bench if you do the program as your first novice program. Whereas we get plenty of stories of guys who have trained for years doing bodybuilding style routines who then do SS and end up with a big squat, deadlift ... and respectable bench and press.

A guy with a decent press and bench to go with his deadlift and squat is STRONG. a guy with a weak bench and press is weak no matter what his squat and deadlift. IMHO.

First off forget about SS as a program. lets look at compound lifts. historically speaking on these compound lifts ppl stall on OHP then bench then squat and last DL. the 1st 2 exercises mainly use upper body strength compared to the others which are whole body exercises. To get awesome at ohp you need a pair of tree trunks to support you.

bodybuilding? pump pump pump....boring power is where its at. those pretty boys are all show and no go. listen here slum dog want 2 b lift authority you spend more time here making wild hypothesis's then you do lifting. and i understand that bombay and calcutta may only carry one book (thomas the train) so before you open mouth know full in advance that you'll be inserting both feet!!!

bon appetetite!

[Sami]

lol, not quite sure what to make of that.

[George Noble]

FWIW I know a guy who probably squats around 400 lbs raw and can only bench 198 in a shirt.

[ZKP]

FWIW I know a guy who probably squats around 400 lbs raw and can only bench 198 in a shirt.

Thats an example of the exception and not the rule. As I said genetic variation. Or he's retraining an injury. Plus a shirt's not really necessary with a 200 lb bench, so his use assistance gear is a little tweaked. When you have a case like that something's going on, obviously, but it's not the squatting that's off..

[Sami]

FWIW I know a guy who probably squats around 400 lbs raw and can only bench 198 in a shirt.

Me too; burningnunz. http://static.thestudentroom.co.uk/images/smilies/rofl.gif

[imnotbncre8ive]

Are you leaving because of me or Stacey?

And is there a prize for whoever it was?

HAHA. If nothing else, let my amusement be your trophy.


I think this is exactly right. Every time I see a singh post, however, I know someone is going to take the bait.

Even if he's not a troll who gets his jollies from provoking this board, he is still not here for help, just to vent about his failures and to get attention (not an uncommon thing on the internet).

I wonder if it's possible for there not to be a single respone--or even a single viewing!--of his next post.

Impossible... curiosity and amusement-seeking would get the best of me. There'd be at least 1 viewing.

[George Noble]

Thats an example of the exception and not the rule. As I said genetic variation. Or he's retraining an injury. Plus a shirt's not really necessary with a 200 lb bench, so his use assistance gear is a little tweaked. When you have a case like that something's going on, obviously, but it's not the squatting that's off..
He's using a single ply Inzer Rage X I think. From what I know he just has a strong lower body and struggles with upper body lifts. I'm not saying he's the rule, but I think the whole "squats make your upper body grow" is overstated at best.


Me too; burningnunz. http://static.thestudentroom.co.uk/images/smilies/rofl.gif
I benched 303 in my shirt :mad:

Couldn't get a good touch with 298. Jacking the shirt for the 303 was like doing art because I had never really benched in it before and we had to guess where everything went. We got it right because we have mad skillz.

[anchor]

comedy! well-played, guys. that dude needs to have some milk and a smile and shut the fuck up.