starting strength gym
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Intermediate and Advanced Training: A Few Ideas

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Intermediate and Advanced Training: A Few Ideas

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    by Mark Rippetoe, stef bradford, and Andy Baker

    Starting Strength is on a roll. The method is growing in popularity, and as it does, more people flow through the Novice pipeline and end up as Intermediate and even Advanced lifters than ever before. Once a tiny fraction of the training population, post-novice trainees now comprise a rapidly expanding section of the market for training information. It is important that the logic and clarity of the Starting Strength approach to Novice programming be maintained as these lifters enter into more complex stress/recovery/adaptation environments.

    Read article

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    958

    Default

    "Backing off from 375 to 305 for more reps, sets, and higher volume while adding more squat days to the program would actually be detraining in intensity to favor increased volume, and “junk reps” do not drive a strength increase in anybody except a baby novice. Volume outside the context of tonnage is meaningless: 8 sets of 6 reps at 50% is high volume"

    Good article but I see a misassumption in the above statement. Assuming that 5 rep max is ~85% of 1 rep max, then 375 X 5 ~ 440 pound 1 rep max squat. Backing off to 305 for 5 X 5 would represent using ~ 70% of the lifter's 1 rep max, not 50%. You suggest backing off to ~80% of the 1RM (95% of 85%). 70% is on the low range, but given the fact that this weight will be titrated up over the weeks, at say 10 pounds/week, it would take about a month to hit ~80%. So, the lifter would get to where he/she needed to be, albeit a few weeks later and after being beat up by the brutal end of LP, this deload phase may be necessary. I would ask the hard question: would there be a signifigant difference between the 70% deload guy and the 80% delad guy a year after deloading, all other aspects of biology and training programming being equal?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,498

    Default

    8 sets of 6 at 50% is merely an example of of high volume. It is not anything else, since I do not calculate anything except backoff sets on percentages. Six people have read the manuscript of this article, and you seem to be the only one who is confused.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Warsaw, EUSSR
    Posts
    210

    Default

    So as an intermediate you can make long term progress while doing less volume and tonnage than you used to do as a novice? As far as squatting goes: on SS LP you do 45 total reps per week while on a 4-day split as presented you only do 30 reps per week. In terms of total weekly tonnage hypothetical lifter from the article lifted 10 775 lbs throughout the week while on a 4-day split. However on his last week of SS LP (assuming he ended it on Friday with 375x5x3, on Wednesday did 370x5x3 and on Monday 365x5x3) total tonnage was 5625+5550+5475=16 650 lbs.

    I won't go into the aspect of intensity in terms of 1RM percentage since this would involve a lot of needless speculation. Especially since I think we all would agree that in both programs intensity is high enough to drive adaptiations into desired direction.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,498

    Default

    Igor, this is not Facebook. You don't get to start typing until you actually READ THE ARTICLE.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    chicago, il
    Posts
    3

    Default

    But actively seeking a level of complexity that is not only unwarranted but unproductive is a waste of time and potential strength. Training is more productive if it remains as simple and straightforward as possible, and this means the absolute least amount of deviation possible from the task of setting new PRs as often as possible.
    (emphasis added)

    As the number of post-novice trainees continues to increase, it might be worthwhile to consider what percentage of them will still have "setting new PRs as often as possible" as their primary motivating goal in continuing past the novice LP. Many people do have the competitive mentality that'll drive them through week after week of the same repetitive, difficult activities just to get a 5 lb PR that not even their wife will care about. Others might be more interested in fighting off the grave, or in burning off the necessary calories to keep up their drinking habits. Some trainees might be seeking more complex programming because they want to try new exercises, they want to have more variety, they want to have something new to talk about or read about. Trainees might start to think they're "strong enough" – and whether they're right or wrong, that'll influence what kind of training they're seeking out. There is certainly a "Lowest Effective Dose of Complexity", but that dosing needs to take into account not only the physiological effects, but also the amount of complexity some lifters might need to maintain compliance with the regimen.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tew View Post
    As the number of post-novice trainees continues to increase, it might be worthwhile to consider what percentage of them will still have "setting new PRs as often as possible" as their primary motivating goal in continuing past the novice LP.
    This article was written for the ones who will.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Training data and performance data are two separate data sets, and are best used that way. Train according to your training data and compete according to your meet data, and the results will not be distorted by inapplicable inputs.
    and

    The last thing most people in this situation should do is change the entire emphasis of the programming
    and

    A week's training in a Novice program and a week's training in Texas Method are not equivalent overload events – the Novice week is 3 overload events, and the TM example is one overload event.
    and

    All these performance scenarios, your taper, and your well-deserved layoff almost always generate bad data that cannot be relied upon for planning the resumption of training
    are just gold. the clarity of this article is outstanding. Further, these sentences resonated because they are the exact mistakes I made during years in the fitness wilderness every previous time I tried to get stronger.

    Coincidentally: I entered my first meet this week. I have been running Wolf's post-novice suggestion, but thought that I ought to look at a more complex plan might be suitable as meet prep. I wrote out a whole program that, while not obscenely complex, was certainly too complex for the reality of the lifter and stakes involved (me, and exceedingly low, respectively). Before reading this article I scrapped the complex plan, reviewed PPST3, and 12 ways to Skin the Texas Method, and arrived at a much, much simpler 4 Day TM plan.

    Then I read this, and know that I'm on the right track for me at this time. Thanks again.

    I do have a clarifying question though arising from the volume section. I'd like to understand why the example in the article would be superior over an example I'm about to give.

    From the article:
    355x5x5 = 25 reps, 8875 pounds
    380x5 = 5 reps, 1900 pounds
    30 reps, total 10775 pounds, average load = 360 pounds (rounded up from 359).

    Example for the same hypothetical lifter, except this program maintains squatting 3x a week:
    320x5 + 340x5 + 360x5 = 5100 pounds
    315x4 + 330x4 + 345x4 = 3960 pounds
    285x8 + 300x8 + 315x8 = 7200 pounds
    15+12+24 = 51 reps
    16260 pounds, average load of 318

    The second example doesn't change the existing schedule from the end of LP, and provides a greater tonnage in the equivalent overload event as the first example.

    I am not arguing a position here, I just want to make sure I understand and am not missing something.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Goldstein View Post
    I'd like to understand why the example in the article would be superior over an example I'm about to give.

    From the article:
    355x5x5 = 25 reps, 8875 pounds
    380x5 = 5 reps, 1900 pounds
    30 reps, total 10775 pounds, average load = 360 pounds (rounded up from 359).

    Example for the same hypothetical lifter, except this program maintains squatting 3x a week:
    320x5 + 340x5 + 360x5 = 5100 pounds
    315x4 + 330x4 + 345x4 = 3960 pounds
    285x8 + 300x8 + 315x8 = 7200 pounds
    15+12+24 = 51 reps
    16260 pounds, average load of 318

    The second example doesn't change the existing schedule from the end of LP, and provides a greater tonnage in the equivalent overload event as the first example.
    I don't understand what your asking here. The example I used is a 4-Day Split, where the lifts go down to 2x/week. Are you asking why the frequency goes down?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    319

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    I guess that’s a more direct question;
    I understand that the sessions are less frequent in the article example to accomplish shorter session times, allow for more recovery between training sessions, and therefore allow for a greater stress to be imposed at each.

    I think the questions I’d like to know more about are:
    In the hypotheticals above, the article example is less tonnage but a greater average load. Is average load a more useful number to pay attention to for the post novice/ early intermediate?

    In the article example, the number of squats in the article example is about 60% of the hypothetical I layer out. Is the number of lifts useful outside of establishing that it is enough to disrupt homeostasis?

    Is the marginal benefit of the greater frequency in the hypothetical less than the greater intensity allowed for in the article example?

    Is holding the intensity of an overload to 5-10% less than previous the key here?

    The way I’ve heard these arguments about volume and intensity have been as a kind of trade off or opportunity cost scenario. Why I think us internet people tend to get attached to one idea or another is because we don’t totally get what’s a priority because we don’t have y’all’s experience training people.

    Thanks again.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •