I am certainly not saying that a novice won't receive a hypertrophy stimulus to the upper body, just that I think it is less than the lower body.
To clarify what I meant further, if we talk about this from a pure muscle hypertrophy standpoint, the lower body is the quads, glutes, adductors, and hamstrings. We also have smaller muscle groups and calves, but largely, those are what we are talking about in this context. All of those muscles get a lot of work three times a week on SSLP.
If we talk about the upper body in the same context, we have a larger array of muscles that we can target. You are right about the shoulder girdle, since that also gets trained three times a week, but what about the chest and biceps, as an example? SSLP trains chest and biceps 1-2 times a week each.
Squats essentially can produce most of the hypertrophy you would want in the lower body. Even Rip said numerous times, squats are all you need "to do legs". However, there is no equivalent lift for the upper body, i.e. no barbell lift just targets everything sufficiently above the waist. And, since we squat every workout and mix the upper body exercises, we don't get quite the same total amount of hypertrophy between the lower and upper body. Essentially, we target all the muscles in the legs every workout, but we do not target all the muscles in the upper body every workout (see chest and biceps as examples).
Again, the point is not that you don't get hypertrophy in the upper body. The point is that the lower body will be a bit more developed than the upper body after finishing SSLP. At least that's how I see it.
If I understand your point here, it is that more or less the same number of upper/lower body slots is performed on SSLP, thus the balance between lower and upper body. If my understanding is correct, I would point out what I mention earlier in that the lower body slots, i.e. squats and deads, completely target the lower body, whereas the upper body slots, on any given day, do not.
Fair enough but... Do you think it was because of the squatting, or in spite of it?
They do. Of course. But, like I mentioned before, the full lower body gets this stimulus 3x a week, while certain muscles of the upper body like the chest, 1-2x a week.
I'm sure that contributes to it. There's also the issue of not being able to do chins/pull-ups for some novices which can further stymie hypertrophy of those muscles.
I disagree. You see, hypertrophy attained/stimulated per session is limited by a many constraints. A few important ones:
1) total muscle protein synthesis, which is capped at a certain level.
2) muscle groups stimulated to threshold
3) Fuel for hypertrophy
If a session surpasses this threshold then more volume =/= more hypertrophy, rather it just adds unnecessarily to fatigue from a hypertrophy only standpoint.
Sure, 3x/wk frequency wise and 4 slots.To clarify what I meant further, if we talk about this from a pure muscle hypertrophy standpoint, the lower body is the quads, glutes, adductors, and hamstrings. We also have smaller muscle groups and calves, but largely, those are what we are talking about in this context. All of those muscles get a lot of work three times a week on SSLP.
I would say the biceps don't get sufficiently trained without chins/pullups and/or rows. That said, I think sufficient stress is imparted (or should be imparted) upon the shoulders, triceps, pecs, etc. 3x/wk from pressing and benching. The lats may get sufficiently trained with deadlifts and indirectly through other movements, for a novice, but also likely require pull ups and chins to be fully stimulated for growth.If we talk about the upper body in the same context, we have a larger array of muscles that we can target. You are right about the shoulder girdle, since that also gets trained three times a week, but what about the chest and biceps, as an example? SSLP trains chest and biceps 1-2 times a week each.
I disagree with this notion, though you could argue the chest is stimulated less in pressing and may subsequently not reach threshold for hypertrophy- though I doubt it for a novice if loading is sufficient.. And, since we squat every workout and mix the upper body exercises, we don't get quite the same total amount of hypertrophy between the lower and upper body.
I don't necessarily think that's necessarily true always. Rather, I think many come to SS without any sort of formal lower body training and some history of upper body training, e.g. pull ups, pushups, +/- benching and pressing so the threshold is a little higher here, but loading should take care of that for a true novice.Again, the point is not that you don't get hypertrophy in the upper body. The point is that the lower body will be a bit more developed than the upper body after finishing SSLP. At least that's how I see it.
I think this where we fundamtentally disagree.If my understanding is correct, I would point out what I mention earlier in that the lower body slots, i.e. squats and deads, completely target the lower body, whereas the upper body slots, on any given day, do not.
Not sure, but the point is that I do not think it's a huge deal that always compromises results. Rather, I think it's likely that fatigue incurred from squatting sometimes transfers to upper body stuff and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes other things contribute to fatigue that we don't even think about. It's nuanced, IMO.Fair enough but... Do you think it was because of the squatting, or in spite of it?
Again, I think the argument is do they get stimulated to threshold? I think they can in most instances.They do. Of course. But, like I mentioned before, the full lower body gets this stimulus 3x a week, while certain muscles of the upper body like the chest, 1-2x a week.
I 100% agree here.I'm sure that contributes to it. There's also the issue of not being able to do chins/pull-ups for some novices which can further stymie hypertrophy of those muscles.
I think this part, along with your follow-up statements is where the crux of the issue is for me. We know that we are at threshold for squats, i.e. doing SSLP with 4x a week squats, or higher volume of squats would not be productive. But it seems the line for upper body lifts is not as clear. Are we truly at threshold for, say, chest development?
Hypothetically, what if a novice did LP but instead focused on bench 3x a week and alternated squats and pulls? What would the bench, as well as related hypertrophy look like at the end, compared to SSLP? I think it would be higher, indicating that it is under-stimulated during SSLP.
However, the point is perhaps that we have a fixed amount of protein synthesis we can trigger, as you have pointed out, so for novices we choose to focus on more squatting because it delivers a bigger bang for the buck from a strength perspective.
I agree with that. There's probably a grand total of one person that started SSLP with a decent squat and a history of lower body training and no upper body training. You can't see legs in the mirror or when wearing pants, why work them out, bro?
Sure. But, I would think that if you measured your bench performance over time, doing the lift in a fresh state vs. after a squat session, over time, you would see better performance when doing the lift fresh.
As I pointed out initially, I think this is the precise question we're trying to answer. We know for a fact we can't improve our squat faster on LP. Do we know for a fact we can't improve bench faster? I don't think we do, and I'm leaning towards yes*.
* - But perhaps not advisable in the context of novice strength progression if the goal is max overall strength in smallest amount of time.
On a side note, thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion, I know you are busy. Your responses are educational to me and I appreciate it.
This is why beginners get confused. Too much conflicting information if you read too much.
I think that you are struggling with this dilemma largely because of silly notions about aesthetics. The image of strong in your head probably isn't generated by looking at strong people, but rather by stylistic preferences in a culture that largely doesn't value or need significant strength.
Looking "strong" for guys is really no different than looking "sexy" for women. A sexy woman should be a great lay, but most people with experience in such matters know that the visual ideals don't necessarily line up with the performance...and visuals are actually important to be sexy in a way that is unlike being strong.
I'd argue that arm size and hip to shoulder to waist ratios are totally overemphasized in our culture as an ideal of looking strong and that they don't match up to what dudes look like when they are actually strong. Don't get me wrong. I want a decent gun show and don't want a gut, but I don't think optimizing arm training (in the pure sense of making them as strong and big as possible) is actually going to make anyone stronger and in a sense the dudes who look ideal to most of us are carrying around "unnecessary" hypertrophy, in the sense that it isn't significantly helping their lifts/making them stronger.
Basically, maybe strong people are supposed to have what you picture as disproportionately big asses and disproportionately small arms?
You excluded the power clean. Does it do a better job at providing stimulus to whole lower body or the whole upper body and why? I lean towards lower body since hip and knee extension will create most of the momentum. And loading knee and hip extension is what causes LB development. Upper body needs movement in various directions.
I compared the number of UB to LB exercises of programs that claimed to improve physique.This is not a lot of emphasis on squatting IMO or blatantly favoring the lower body.
Upper Body- 6x/wk
Lower body- 6x/wk
But no one would say my program is "squat dominant'. Can you please explain your argument?
WSFSB: 3.33:1
70s big lp entry phase: 2:1
BBB: 2:1
GSLP arm plug in: 2:1
One Main PPST: 2:1
PHAT: 1.41:1
SS (pc excluded): 1:1
GSLP Base: 1:1
Programming tends to favor a ratio greater than 1:1 when physique/UB is a stronger consideration.
I would say 1:1 is still a fairly strong emphasis on the lower body (or a lack of upper body emphasis).
You stated that a trainee should only think about physique until a "significant amount" of muscle is acquired. I used a 400 pound squat as proxy for that (could be too low).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".
Let's say a trainee at the end of lp experiences an amount of lower body development that he is already quite satisfied with by his own aesthetic standards. This is not the case with his upper body. He also ended lp with a 300 pound squat. He would then have to continue building his squat up to 400 pounds. By that time his thighs and ass will be even bigger in circumference. I would find this unfavorable and a bit discouraging thb.
Under favorable proportions I mean the V-Taper, developed arms in relation to thighs, not overly developed glutes, mass on the shoulder girdle, chest, back etc
I did SS in bodybuilding gym. Virtually nobody was pear shaped there. Never noticed anyone squatting 3x a week there either. If they did I would have met them at the power rack since I spend all my time there. Most of them squatted once or twice a week and a fair amount never squatted at all (they favored machines or didn't want the LB growth).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?
The point I was trying to make is that you can have better odds than SS gives you at developing your upper body in relation to your lower body. This takes into account the low 1:1 ratio and the chin-up/pull-up progress which can be hit or miss.
So, I think missing from this conversation is the overall systemic affect Squats and Deadlifts have on the whole body, especially for a novice lifter. These lifts in particular seem to force a significant increase of mass on the entire body in most males when loaded progressively and provided with adequate fuel and sleep. I work with a guy who follows a more traditional body building routine with lots of upper body work, lots of volume, lots of isolation work, and absolutely no compound lifts. We are similar height, similar training histories (if you can call it that), similar age, and similar builds. I pretty much only squat, pull, press and do chins. I weigh about 40 pounds more, have a larger chest, larger arms, and significantly larger legs. Additionally, his posterior chain is clearly lacking in development.
Bottom line: regardless of genetics and build, if you want upper body size, squats and pulls need to be a frequent staple in your programming.
*** I know, I know, I am a genetic outlier
I believe we are, yes, and I don't think I've heard/read a counter argument that is strong...yet. But we're still typing so maybe we'll get there...
I think it would be the same hypertrophy wise, but stronger bench strength. Why do you think this? If you can articulate why here, perhaps you will make your case, but if you can't...well, then...we're just typing away here.....Hypothetically, what if a novice did LP but instead focused on bench 3x a week and alternated squats and pulls? What would the bench, as well as related hypertrophy look like at the end, compared to SSLP? I think it would be higher, indicating that it is under-stimulated during SSLP.
I'm not sure how you connected "fixed amount of protein synthesis" to "this is why we focus on the squat", because I wouldn't say SSLP focuses on the squat anymore than my current RPE type program "focuses on the squat" and I certainly don't think SSLP was created secondary to the knowledge of muscle protein synthesis thresholds.However, the point is perhaps that we have a fixed amount of protein synthesis we can trigger, as you have pointed out, so for novices we choose to focus on more squatting because it delivers a bigger bang for the buck from a strength perspective.
Having run multiple blocks of training with bench set up like this, I have not experienced that so, for now I will disagree and further - to circle back to your initial statement vs. veering off course- do you think that a heavier bench press (done under less fatigue) = more hypertrophy? I VEHEMENTLY disagree with this based on known physiological principles about training.Sure. But, I would think that if you measured your bench performance over time, doing the lift in a fresh state vs. after a squat session, over time, you would see better performance when doing the lift fresh.
That wasn't the initial concern- it was about size and an overdeveloped lower body (aesthetics wise), right?As I pointed out initially, I think this is the precise question we're trying to answer. We know for a fact we can't improve our squat faster on LP. Do we know for a fact we can't improve bench faster? I don't think we do, and I'm leaning towards yes*.
I suppose that is possible.
Neither really tbh given the lack of eccentric. In general, I think the traps and back get some good work from a isometric standpoint, but as far as hypertrophy stimulus, probably not a good choice overall.
How do you figure upper body needs movement in various directions?I lean towards lower body since hip and knee extension will create most of the momentum. And loading knee and hip extension is what causes LB development. Upper body needs movement in various directions.
I think this ignores how bodies actually grow during a novice progression.I compared the number of UB to LB exercises of programs that claimed to improve physique.
WSFSB: 3.33:1
70s big lp entry phase: 2:1
BBB: 2:1
GSLP arm plug in: 2:1
One Main PPST: 2:1
PHAT: 1.41:1
SS (pc excluded): 1:1
GSLP Base: 1:1
Programming tends to favor a ratio greater than 1:1 when physique/UB is a stronger consideration.
I would say 1:1 is still a fairly strong emphasis on the lower body (or a lack of upper body emphasis).
That tells me nothing about their muscular development, really.You stated that a trainee should only think about physique until a "significant amount" of muscle is acquired. I used a 400 pound squat as proxy for that (could be too low).
You assume that his legs need to grow to get stronger? You also assume that his upper body will not have progressed at the maximal rate possible as a novice. Why? Do you think that upper body requires more volume and exposure to training from the get go, even when previously untrained? If so, why?Let's say a trainee at the end of lp experiences an amount of lower body development that he is already quite satisfied with by his own aesthetic standards. This is not the case with his upper body. He also ended lp with a 300 pound squat. He would then have to continue building his squat up to 400 pounds. By that time his thighs and ass will be even bigger in circumference. I would find this unfavorable and a bit discouraging thb.
What are overly developed glutes and how the f is someone going to get a V taper if they have no muscle mass?Under favorable proportions I mean the V-Taper, developed arms in relation to thighs, not overly developed glutes, mass on the shoulder girdle, chest, back etc
Well, I think that settles it. Might your experience be colored by some other confounding variables?I did SS in bodybuilding gym. Virtually nobody was pear shaped there. Never noticed anyone squatting 3x a week there either. If they did I would have met them at the power rack since I spend all my time there. Most of them squatted once or twice a week and a fair amount never squatted at all (they favored machines or didn't want the LB growth).