starting strength gym
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Too Much Gain in 1 Month?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    120

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    Why do you think GSLP is more balanced and allows more recovery? And, similarly aren't you concerned with your rate of progression?
    More balanced - equal ratio of lower to upper body lifts, presses done first so as not hindered from heavy squats, equal ratio of pushing and pulling. All things referenced in his GSLP book and reported by lifters who've used both GSLP and SSLP. Can all be found with a google search.

    More recovery - less aggressive weight increments, less squatting.

    Arguably GSLP has less recovery though too as you're always AMRAP'ing the last set. So I get that.

    Rate of progression - Not too concerned as I'm still adding weight to the bar in a linear fashion. Just slightly slower than SSLP would suggest. I know that getting stronger is a marathon not a sprint.

    Personally I found that when I did SSLP as a teenager, when I put on most of my size, that size happened to be mostly in my lower body and my bench wasnt that great. I basically got large muscular legs, hips and ass and a bit of a belly and not much upper body growth or progress of upper body lifts. Looked more like a pear.

    GSLP has been helping me keep things more evenly developed. I've seen my chest and arms grow a lot more effectively on this routine:

    3x5+ Bench / 3x5+ Press
    3x5+ Squat / 1x5+ Dead
    3x Chins / 3x Chins

    My experience is shared by many. And I, like many men, would rather have a V-Taper than a 'Pear Body'.

    I'm not trying to start an internet argument. You're WAY stronger than me, and WAY more experienced than me, et cetera. Hence I'm seeking advice from you about nutrition.

    But these are the above conclusions I've come to so far in my lifting...

    I know I'm not strong yet. My main issue, I thought, was getting my nutrition sorted.

    Obviously aesthetics are part of my goals. I want to LOOK strong as well as BE strong. I thought I was going about things the right way...?

    Given these goals and my experience in the past, you'd still recommend SSLP and a slight surplus instead of the GSLP setup? Or keep the GSLP programming but up the increments?

    Thanks for your time Jordan. I appreciate that this is all free advice.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Sod it, I know you havent replied to my other post but I'll write you another now haha.

    Firstly thanks for all your free advice.

    Secondly I'm going to take that advice, since you clearly know what youre doing! I'm going to eat at what I think is maintenance for a bit, since I seem to be gaining weight anyway, and just do THE PROGRAM.

    I'll report back in a few months if I have any questions then. Cheers again.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samstrength View Post
    More balanced - equal ratio of lower to upper body lifts,
    How is it more balanced wrt the ratio?

    SS= 3 upper body slots per week and 4 lower body slots per week
    GSLP= 3 upper body and 3-4 lower body slots, depending on the setup.

    presses done first so as not hindered from heavy squats, equal ratio of pushing and pulling. All things referenced in his GSLP book and reported by lifters who've used both GSLP and SSLP. Can all be found with a google search.
    Look man, I've actually done GSLP and there are no "lifters" using the program. I like the setup in few situations, but it's not a novice plan. I have the book and would ask you to explicitly spell out your rationale.

    More recovery - less aggressive weight increments, less squatting.
    How is there more recovery?
    The weight increments are not explicitly stated for SSLP, so that's a user selected thing (not program selected thing)
    As far as 1x less squatting per week, I mean....okay. We see that in the advanced novice plan too, but I don't think someone who should be running SSLP should concern themselves with it.
    Arguably GSLP has less recovery though too as you're always AMRAP'ing the last set. So I get that.

    Rate of progression - Not too concerned as I'm still adding weight to the bar in a linear fashion. Just slightly slower than SSLP would suggest. I know that getting stronger is a marathon not a sprint.
    See, I actually really dislike this line of thinking. It is a rush because we don't have forever to do this and, further, the sooner you get to the next point the sooner you can start accumulating work there. The "marathon" reference is not supported by the decision to decrease practice squatting, doing AMRAP sets when still a novice, and not prioritizing the squat.

    Personally I found that when I did SSLP as a teenager, when I put on most of my size, that size happened to be mostly in my lower body and my bench wasnt that great. I basically got large muscular legs, hips and ass and a bit of a belly and not much upper body growth or progress of upper body lifts. Looked more like a pear.
    I would say that has more to do with your predispositions as a lifter and genetically than anything else tbh. How are your chin ups and pull ups?

    I'm not trying to start an internet argument. You're WAY stronger than me, and WAY more experienced than me, et cetera. Hence I'm seeking advice from you about nutrition.

    But these are the above conclusions I've come to so far in my lifting...

    I know I'm not strong yet. My main issue, I thought, was getting my nutrition sorted.

    Obviously aesthetics are part of my goals. I want to LOOK strong as well as BE strong. I thought I was going about things the right way...?

    Given these goals and my experience in the past, you'd still recommend SSLP and a slight surplus instead of the GSLP setup? Or keep the GSLP programming but up the increments?
    Look man, you can do whatever you want to do and that's fine. GSLP will be fine for a little bit, but unless you're carrying a significant amount of muscle right now I probably wouldn't be thinking about aesthetics, since we need to do some work on that first.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samstrength View Post
    Firstly thanks for all your free advice.

    Secondly I'm going to take that advice, since you clearly know what youre doing! I'm going to eat at what I think is maintenance for a bit, since I seem to be gaining weight anyway, and just do THE PROGRAM.

    I'll report back in a few months if I have any questions then. Cheers again.
    By program in this message I meant Starting Strength.

    Everything you've said makes more sense. I was just reporting how I came to my conclusions before.

    Max chinups currently between 9-13 reps depending on the day, if that's still relevant.

    Thanks for your time.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    I would say that has more to do with your predispositions as a lifter and genetically than anything else tbh. How are your chin ups and pull ups?
    I too ended up with a pear shape body while on SS. While it's true that I gain weight more easily on my lower body than around my midsection, I also believe that training programs can emphasize and de-emphasize other parts of the body.

    It's a given that a percentage of all trainee's will have this genetic predisposition and when they go on a program that puts a lot of emphasis on squatting, then that program is going to produce a lot more lower body dominant lifters. For this reason I don't think it's coincidence at all that the SS program carries this stigma. Just like how the "never skip legday" proportion is attached to the bro-split crowd where squatting tends to happen only once a week.
    I don't think it's only genetics. And I'm not fully convinced yet that SS is the optimal program for this demographic that still wants to make solid strength gains but also wants to keep their proportions in check.

    Look man, you can do whatever you want to do and that's fine. GSLP will be fine for a little bit, but unless you're carrying a significant amount of muscle right now I probably wouldn't be thinking about aesthetics, since we need to do some work on that first.
    When would that be for a trainee that easily puts on mass on the lower body? After SS is done or when a trainee reaches 405 pound squat and his proportions are even more unfavorable?

    I think that a trainee can start thinking about aesthetics much earlier without doing unproductive stuff by simply being aware of the upper body volume of the intermediate program they're choosing. Standard TM has you do 45 weekly reps on the bench and press, while on your 4 day TM split this would increase to 63.
    One main lift per day + supplemental work - 4 days p/w has been used successfully by coaches here too, and gives you 3 upper body days per single leg day.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drone View Post
    I too ended up with a pear shape body while on SS. While it's true that I gain weight more easily on my lower body than around my midsection, I also believe that training programs can emphasize and de-emphasize other parts of the body.
    Of course they can based on exposure, volume, etc. That said, I would say your pear shaped result is due to many factors- not "Starting Strength" programming per se.

    It's a given that a percentage of all trainee's will have this genetic predisposition and when they go on a program that puts a lot of emphasis on squatting, then that program is going to produce a lot more lower body dominant lifters.
    So, I think we should stop this right here and make you guys actually think about a given week and volume exposure.
    Upper body : 3x/wk, 45 reps + chins and pull ups
    Lower body 3x/wk, 50 reps

    This is not a lot of emphasis on squatting IMO or blatantly favoring the lower body.

    For reference, my base sort of template when programming myself is as follows:

    Upper Body- 6x/wk
    Lower body- 6x/wk

    But no one would say my program is "squat dominant'. Can you please explain your argument?

    I don't think it's only genetics. And I'm not fully convinced yet that SS is the optimal program for this demographic that still wants to make solid strength gains but also wants to keep their proportions in check.
    I think the real issue is that you have a good proportion of folks who find SS with minimal to no prior training experience and they respond worse to training than folks who have been previously active/trained to some extent, most notably if they are older. I think the demographic who is attracted to SS has many of these folks, perhaps disproportionately.

    When would that be for a trainee that easily puts on mass on the lower body? After SS is done or when a trainee reaches 405 pound squat and his proportions are even more unfavorable?
    What do you mean by "more unfavorable"? What are favorable proportions? I would love for a guy to get up to squatting 405 x 5 x 3 and benching 275 x 5 x 3 (or so) on advanced novice or LP. I doubt this would be "unfavorable proportions".

    I think that a trainee can start thinking about aesthetics much earlier without doing unproductive stuff by simply being aware of the upper body volume of the intermediate program they're choosing. Standard TM has you do 45 weekly reps on the bench and press, while on your 4 day TM split this would increase to 63.
    SS has people do 45 reps too, so TM wouldn't be an improvement. The split "might", if appropriate, but if introduced too early it won't help.

    One main lift per day + supplemental work - 4 days p/w has been used successfully by coaches here too, and gives you 3 upper body days per single leg day.
    This does not support your point. There are people who have never trained seriously and do all sorts of shit and look better than anyone who has ever posted here. What is your point?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    120

    Default

    I'm just gunna do what Jordan tells me to do, seems to have worked for everyone else.

    He knows I'm interested in LOOKING strong too, and SS is still the way to go.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    605

    Default

    Jordan,

    I think perhaps the point is the emphasis on squats workout-to-workout. On SSLP, you do squats every workout, for a total of 45 reps per week. However, you do bench once or twice a week, for a total of 15-30 reps a week, depending on the week. The same for the press. So, SSLP is biased towards squat progression, vs. say bench or press progression by work reps alone. The other issue is that squats are always done first. Now, this makes sense for obvious reasons, but once the weights get heavy, doing heavy benching/pressing after heavy squatting can become sub-optimal.

    As you pointed out, the lower vs. upper split actually seems pretty even if you simply count upper reps vs lower reps, but the training and hypertrophy effects of 3x5 squats on the lower body are happening three times a week, whereas, for example, the chest is getting trained 1-2 times a week.

    Now, I don't think this is a problem with SSLP, and I am not sure how you could make it more optimal, if strength is the goal. But, I think the program does bias a bit towards the lower body, if one is concerned about such things to begin with. I think we're also talking about the lower body in terms of thighs and ass, and upper body in terms of torso and shoulders. There's also the arms part, and I think most trainees finish SSLP with relatively minor hypertrophy in the arms, which might contribute to the lower body bias perception. If a skinny kid starts SSLP, he will finish with a much bigger ass, but not with much bigger tri's and bi's, bruh.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Maybe I'm completely off base, but want to put out a thought on this. I would appreciate it if you could either confirm or call bs on this.

    The simple fact of training generates the physiologic conditions to grow. The larger you can make this stimulus, the more effectively your body will respond, within reason of course. The size of the stimulus will be proportional to the amount of muscle mass that is stressed. So, if you only focus on upper body, the amount of muscle mass stressed is much smaller, so the physiologic response is smaller too. By training sqauts and deadlifts, you are stimulating the response to a greater degree than upper body alone can do. This, along with the specific stress of the movement is what generates the physical adaptation.

    Since everything is nuanzZzed, I'm sure I'm over simplifying this.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by quikky View Post
    Jordan,

    I think perhaps the point is the emphasis on squats workout-to-workout. On SSLP, you do squats every workout, for a total of 45 reps per week. However, you do bench once or twice a week, for a total of 15-30 reps a week, depending on the week. The same for the press.

    Bench and press both work the shoulder girdle and upper limb musculature sufficient for a novice (previously untrained) to generate a robust hypertrophy stimulus to that musculature.
    So, SSLP is biased towards squat progression, vs. say bench or press progression by work reps alone.
    I disagree. In my article Into the Great Wide Open I discuss slots and exercise frequency. I direct you there for a further fleshing out of that argument.

    The other issue is that squats are always done first. Now, this makes sense for obvious reasons, but once the weights get heavy, doing heavy benching/pressing after heavy squatting can become sub-optimal.
    Interestingly, my heaviest benches of all time have come after squatting. YMMV.

    As you pointed out, the lower vs. upper split actually seems pretty even if you simply count upper reps vs lower reps, but the training and hypertrophy effects of 3x5 squats on the lower body are happening three times a week, whereas, for example, the chest is getting trained 1-2 times a week.
    Can you describe a way to press where the musculature of the shoulder girdle and upper limb do not recieve sufficient stress to trigger a hypertrophy response?

    Now, I don't think this is a problem with SSLP, and I am not sure how you could make it more optimal, if strength is the goal. But, I think the program does bias a bit towards the lower body, if one is concerned about such things to begin with. I think we're also talking about the lower body in terms of thighs and ass, and upper body in terms of torso and shoulders. There's also the arms part, and I think most trainees finish SSLP with relatively minor hypertrophy in the arms, which might contribute to the lower body bias perception. If a skinny kid starts SSLP, he will finish with a much bigger ass, but not with much bigger tri's and bi's, bruh.
    I honestly think that phenotype has a lot to do with chin up/pull up training too, for a novice.

    Quote Originally Posted by schmatt View Post
    Maybe I'm completely off base, but want to put out a thought on this. I would appreciate it if you could either confirm or call bs on this.

    The simple fact of training generates the physiologic conditions to grow.
    Yes.
    The larger you can make this stimulus, the more effectively your body will respond, within reason of course.
    Yes
    The size of the stimulus will be proportional to the amount of muscle mass that is stressed.
    Eh, kind of- but also the fatigue induced more precisely, which is multifactorial.

    So, if you only focus on upper body, the amount of muscle mass stressed is much smaller, so the physiologic response is smaller too. By training sqauts and deadlifts, you are stimulating the response to a greater degree than upper body alone can do. This, along with the specific stress of the movement is what generates the physical adaptation.
    On some level, yes and to a point, of course.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •