starting strength gym
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: The Most Important Aspect of Programming: Training vs Exercise

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,112

    Default The Most Important Aspect of Programming: Training vs Exercise

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    by Mark Rippetoe

    If strength is the objective (and it should be for everybody), understanding the difference between Training and Exercising is fundamental to being an effective athlete and an effective coach. So is understanding the difference between the basic barbell movements – the primary exercises – and the assistance exercises, the ones most people worry the most about.​

    Read article

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    west side
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stef View Post
    by Mark Rippetoe

    [I]Likewise, bodyweight-only exercises like situps, pushups, burpees, air squats, one-legged squats, handstand pushups, bodyweight dips, exercises done on rings, and kettlebell exercises – any exercise whose loading variable is the number of reps or the length of the set, and which does not have a 1RM – cannot drive a strength improvement. This is because after about 10 reps, and depending on your bodyweight, they are not limited by your force production ability; they are endurance exercises. Their repetitive nature means that they are inherently sub-maximal in terms of force production. They cannot make you stronger unless you are very weak, and they cannot continue to make you stronger for more than a couple of weeks even if you are.
    That's a bold assertion. But, with all due respect, there have been very strong people throughout human existence. Pre-barbell. Before linear progression.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Corduroy View Post
    That's a bold assertion. But, with all due respect, there have been very strong people throughout human existence. Pre-barbell. Before linear progression.
    I have not seen the training logs of Achilles, Skanderbeg, or Maximinus Thrax. Exactly how strong were they?

    Also: how did ordinary people with cubicle jobs who spent all their time in front of a laptop stay strong in the 3d century, I wonder?

    Also: there have been many healthy people throughout human existence. Pre-antibiotic. Before germ theory.

    Also: there have been many well-fed people throughout human existence. Pre-agriculture. Before civilization.

    Also: I can do this all day.
    Last edited by Jonathon Sullivan; 02-12-2017 at 11:04 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    west side
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    Also: there have been many healthy people throughout human existence. Pre-antibiotic. Before germ theory.
    "The Starting Strength barbell program is for strength development what germ theory is to medicine." - Dr. Jonathan Sullivan

    You're way too smart to defend that hyperbole.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Corduroy View Post
    "The Starting Strength barbell program is for strength development what germ theory is to medicine." - Dr. Jonathan Sullivan

    You're way too smart to defend that hyperbole.
    Except that's not what I'm saying, is it? I'm also too smart to defend words put into my mouth.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,562

    Default

    It's always more fun to refute your own version of the argument.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    It's always more fun to refute your own version of the argument.
    For some people, yeah, I guess. It's easy, it's cheap, you don't really have to consider the other person's point of view, you can cum into the kleenex when it suits you, and you don't have to go home in the cold.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    west side
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    For some people, yeah, I guess. It's easy, it's cheap, you don't really have to consider the other person's point of view
    OK then. Fair enough. What are you saying exactly? How were people strong before barbells? Because many were strong. Very strong. Probably very many.

    you can cum into the kleenex when it suits you, and you don't have to go home in the cold.
    This is why God invented the edit feature so you can go back like, "OK. I'm above this. Lets just delete that last part. High road and all that. Now I feel better."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Corduroy View Post
    OK then. Fair enough. What are you saying exactly?
    I believe everybody took my meaning, which was implicit but plain. Except you. Because to do so would put your original post in its rightfully silly light. Life is pain.

    How were people strong before barbells? Because many were strong. Very strong. Probably very many.
    You haven't answered my question. Just how strong were they? And how many were strong? And what was the distribution of strength in the population of, say, pre-Roman Gaul or Parma? Please retrieve this data. I'll wait.

    Because, you see, I am so foolish as to entertain the notion that people are generally better educated, better nourished, better housed, more comfortable, slightly less barbaric, longer-lived on average, and usually a good bit taller than their ancestors. And similarly, it may be that our current approaches to fitness (the ability to meet the demands of our life and environment) and strength acquisition (especially barbell training with progressive overload) may be just a leeeeetle bit more rational, evidence-based, reprodicible, widely available and effective now than they were in the time of, say, Ashurbanipal--strong though I am sure he was compared to the half-starved, illiterate, unvaccinated peasants without access to Crossfit or Fitbot whom he slaughtered and enslaved in industrial quantities.

    Because things are, you know, different now. This has not escaped the notice of most people.

    This is why God invented the edit feature so you can go back like, "OK. I'm above this. Lets just delete that last part. High road and all that. Now I feel better."
    Huh? I feel great. I....I really just don't understand what you're getting with that last part.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,074

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Corduroy View Post
    That's a bold assertion. But, with all due respect, there have been very strong people throughout human existence. Pre-barbell. Before linear progression.
    There are also very strong people today who never pick up a barbell. The difference between those who roamed the earth before the advent of bars or bells is why they got strong. It wasn't because they wanted to, it was because survival depended on dragging a carcass, donning heavy armor while raising a sword to behead your enemy and positioning heavy rocks and tree trunks to create shelter (or whipping the guy doing that for you). So you amassed the strength necessary to do those things. Or you died. Nobody got strong just to show off how strong they were, and therefore measurements of strength weren't needed: either you were strong enough to survive or you weren't.

    But, once you were able to do those things, more strength wasn't necessary and, in fact, the repetition for endurance sake was far more beneficial (number of carcasses dragged, heads lobbed off or boulders moved). So, could those in ancient times (or those in manual labor-centric professions today) have theoretically gotten stronger with the use of different activities? Sure. The paragraph you quoted talks of optimizing strength, not simply getting strong enough. There are plenty of exceptionally strong people, then and now, who haven't optimized their full potential strength. Anyone whose peak squat 1RM is 800lbs had, at one time, a 1RM of 500lbs. Clearly, in retrospect, their potential hadn't been optimized, but they were damn strong.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •