Article on NCAA Strength & Conditioning

[Mark Rippetoe]

Ask Rip #44 | Starting Strength Channel

Relevant part starts at 13:30.

[LimieJosh]

This is by no means a defense of the standards, but I have seen among these guys that the psychology and placebo effect is massive. If they believe a gimmick will give them an edge then it will. Seeing what the standard for coaching and training demands are among these people (pathetic and often head scratching) I have often wondered if the pendulum could ever swing far enough towards the ridiculous that the basics of sets of heavy 5s with a barbell could be considered gimmicky enough...

[Michael Wolf]

This is by no means a defense of the standards, but I have seen among these guys that the psychology and placebo effect is massive. If they believe a gimmick will give them an edge then it will.

This is credible.

But if we somehow COULD change the standard practice to be one that prioritizes objective strength acquisition, primarily via barbell training of the primary lifts (and variations and assistance lifts, when appropriate,) as described in SS I think that would end up being, over a 4 year collegiate athletic career, WAY more potent than the placebo effect of ineffective stuff that they think is awesome.

[Greg Ruhl]

<sarcasm> You guys are missing the key detail: The Oregon S&C coach had a *track* certification, not a "football-appropriate" accreditation. Evidently strength is gained differently depending on your sport.</sarcasm>.

[Scaldrew]

To be fair, having a title like "the fat guy in Texas" doesn't sound all that bad. Better than "the weak guy from California", to be sure.

I love how pertinent material is never many clicks away in this community. Waiting for videos like Ask Rip or On the Platform is always a good idea before chiming in and a practice I try to uphold, though the temptation of being read is always great.

[tallison]

Ask Rip #44 | Starting Strength Channel

Relevant part starts at 13:30.

Returning to the Golgi question for a moment: I think the gist of the question was: are there aspects of aging and atrophy that make it impossible for older adults to adapt? OR Is there any evidence at the cellular level of what is going on when they do? But I'm just guessing... (I think Rip got distracted here by the variety of sub-cellular anatomical structures Golgi has named after himself because he first discovered them with his dyes - the most well-known of which being the "Golgi apparatus", but there is also a "tendon body", or somesuch).

[LimieJosh]

This is credible.

But if we somehow COULD change the standard practice to be one that prioritizes objective strength acquisition, primarily via barbell training of the primary lifts (and variations and assistance lifts, when appropriate,) as described in SS I think that would end up being, over a 4 year collegiate athletic career, WAY more potent than the placebo effect of ineffective stuff that they think is awesome.

Absolutley, I dont disagree with any of that. I understand the concept of narrowcasting and the lack of desire to sell the product/process (you cant make someone do it who doesnt want to do it), but where I was going with my rather undeveloped thought was that if anyone has the opportunity to work with an athlete of this caliber I wonder if the correct way to sell it is the novelty of it and how different it is to the things everyone else is doing.

[George Christiansen]

As I have mentioned many times, we are narrowcasting.

This is really the only model that works financially for a small business anyway. You simply cannot make money doing cheap volume sales (which is what most glob gyms do) when it is one or two coaches at a SS gym and sessions that run over an hour per client.

This is by no means a defense of the standards, but I have seen among these guys that the psychology and placebo effect is massive.

I think the benefit is that constant "testing" makes the athlete feel like they are always at the top of their abilities, which is a big factor.

This is credible.

But if we somehow COULD change the standard practice to be one that prioritizes objective strength acquisition, primarily via barbell training of the primary lifts (and variations and assistance lifts, when appropriate,) as described in SS I think that would end up being, over a 4 year collegiate athletic career, WAY more potent than the placebo effect of ineffective stuff that they think is awesome.

You'd still get the above effect during the LP because it is the land of easy PR's and by then it would be so obvious that you were stronger than all the other players that that sense of things would likely overcome the "boredom" of intermediate/ in season programming, which still has regular PR's anyway.

[Joe Jaloszynski]

Plus, the SS method doesn't use fun new toys like magic headphones or Kaatsu pressure bands that were featured in ESPN video of Yoenis Cepedes' intense workouts.

Kaatsu restricts blood flow to a limb, "I can't even feel my legs," the lady said gleefully. I mean, that just sounds like a complete misunderstanding of physiology.

[John Bono]

As I have mentioned many times, we are narrowcasting. It is not likely that this method of strength training will ever replace the current conventional wisdom in any of the sports featured on ESPN, because it is boring, it doesn't look like Baseball, MMA, or Golf, and it requires the coach to have actually learned something and accomplished something personally under the bar. Their way is much easier.

Maybe you should start with the chess team. When a DIII chess team can outlift a DI football team, perhaps some minds might be changed.