Progress on pressing movements

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

As I have stated many times, yes, I have read both books multiple times. You all seem to think that disagree=haven't read. I mentioned rep cycling and "running it out" in one of my posts, if you actually bothered to read the whole thing.

Speaking for myself, I could care less about disagreement about what's in PPST3. The irritation comes when people start attributing things to the book that are not in the book. "Do a 5RM and add 5 lbs" is the internets favorite strawman, when in fact the book explicitly states not to do this except for possibly a short time following the LP. In actual practice I can tell you that I rarely if ever use 5RMs on the Intensity Day in the Texas Method with my clients. This is just one example, but yeah it can get irritating. This is compounded by the fact that most of the criticism comes from people who have limited experience as lifters, zero experience as a coach, and have never written or spoken one original thought of their own and opened themselves up to any sort of public criticism. They hide behind screen names and take shots (using other peoples language as if it were their own). To be fair, we have people on "our side" that do the same thing, and that is annoying too. This isn't directed at your personally Devyn. I get the sense you are trying to actually learn and have a lot of competing info being thrown at you. I'm just glad I grew up in gyms before the internet was a thing.

[Keith]

QUOTE=coldfire;1727114]This is called begging the question.[/QUOTE]

Begging the question is assuming what has to be proven. I am not sure what you think is assumed in the question "How do I know that inappropriate doses of stress are ineffective?" You think that it remains to be proven that inappropriately dosed stress is ineffective?

Second, when intensity is considered only as a percentage of 1RM, it doesn’t take into account
the wide variability of stress induced by that same intensity percentage on lifters of various levels
of strength and training advancement. For example, a lifter who squats 600 lbs can make progress
squatting in the 425 lb (70%) range for higher rep/volume sets across. But a lifter who squats 175 lbs
almost certainly cannot drive a strength adaptation squatting 120 lbs for any sets across. Despite being
lifts of the same “intensity,” they are obviously different stress events. It’s clear that load matters.

The above is from Matt Reynold's essay on MED. Do you disagree with the assertion that a lifter who squats 175lbs cannot drive an adaptation squatting 120lbs for any sets across? I am only trying to draw out the underlying principle that makes Reynold's assertion true.

This is all random, partially incorrect and has nothing to do with the question.

What's incorrect?
It is related to the point at hand because the question is how far towards volume and away from intensity can a trainee move and still make progress. And the answer is that volume has to rise as genetic potential is approached. Trainees further from their genetic potential are more intensity dependent and trainees closer to their genetic potential are more intensity sensitive.

Les gave the example of presumably intermediate women doing some work at 70% with 1RMs around 300lbs. Sounds right, but I think it just refines the point. Similarly Eric said that he used sets of 135 to get in work to get his press to 200lbs. Also seems right but also just refines the point since a 200lbs press is similar in terms of training advancement to a 500lbs deadlift.

It does not.

Do you have an example where sets at 210lbs create an adaptive stress such that it will better a 300 1RM?

[Rob Waskis]

Similarly Eric said that he used sets of 135 to get in work to get his press to 200lbs. Also seems right but also just refines the point since a 200lbs press is similar in terms of training advancement to a 500lbs deadlift.


Do you have an example where sets at 210lbs create an adaptive stress such that it will better a 300 1RM?

I said that, not Eric. I also gave the example of sets of 8 at 210 being useful for a 300lb bencher.

[Rob Waskis]

I'm just glad I grew up in gyms before the internet was a thing.

I used to think, “man, if I knew then what I know now...”. Now, I’m not so sure, and I kind of agree with you here.

I do wish someone had told me when I was younger “do that again next time you come, but add 5lbs and squat lower “.

[Keith]

I said that, not Eric. I also gave the example of sets of 8 at 210 being useful for a 300lb bencher.

sorry Rob. You are probably right about the bench too.

[Devyn Stewart]

Speaking for myself, I could care less about disagreement about what's in PPST3. The irritation comes when people start attributing things to the book that are not in the book. "Do a 5RM and add 5 lbs" is the internets favorite strawman, when in fact the book explicitly states not to do this except for possibly a short time following the LP. In actual practice I can tell you that I rarely if ever use 5RMs on the Intensity Day in the Texas Method with my clients. This is just one example, but yeah it can get irritating. This is compounded by the fact that most of the criticism comes from people who have limited experience as lifters, zero experience as a coach, and have never written or spoken one original thought of their own and opened themselves up to any sort of public criticism. They hide behind screen names and take shots (using other peoples language as if it were their own). To be fair, we have people on "our side" that do the same thing, and that is annoying too. This isn't directed at your personally Devyn. I get the sense you are trying to actually learn and have a lot of competing info being thrown at you. I'm just glad I grew up in gyms before the internet was a thing.

I appreciate the sentiment, Coach Baker. Among all the competing information, I'm learning that even on the internet, no one can give you years of trial and error figuring out what works. That has to come from actual years trying and failing.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Progress on pressing movements

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

I used to think, “man, if I knew then what I know now...”. Now, I’m not so sure, and I kind of agree with you here.

I do wish someone had told me when I was younger “do that again next time you come, but add 5lbs and squat lower “.

The lifting culture has changed quite a bit with the advent of the internet. So many guys now lift alone in their garage or basement and they don't have advantage of training around other powerlifters, bodybuilders, etc and watching how successful lifters train over extended periods of time. Social media allows people to see a guy perform a singular awesome lift, but they don't really get the benefit of watching him train day in and day out to see how he got there. Articles and stuff help, but it's not the same thing.

The other thing about being in great gyms is you get to see how many approaches actually work. When you are exposed to that you tend to engage less argument and you realize the futility of trying to prove that this or that approach is superior to all else. I don't know Les, but just listening to him engage here, my guess is that he's been around a few decent gyms in his time and seen what I've seen.

One thing that is highlighted in this particular thread is that many of those involved seem to think that there is the Aasgard Approach vs the RTS inspired approach and that is where the dividing line is - the two options. The reality is that there are legions of big strong lifters out there who have never heard of either approach, do their own thing that doesn't conform to either model, and still get strong. And no, they are not all genetic freaks who take steroids.

[coldfire]

Begging the question is assuming what has to be proven. I am not sure what you think is assumed in the question "How do I know that inappropriate doses of stress are ineffective?" You think that it remains to be proven that inappropriately dosed stress is ineffective?

You assume that the stress is inappropriate to show that the stress won't provide any strength gains.

The above is from Matt Reynold's essay on MED. Do you disagree with the assertion that a lifter who squats 175lbs cannot drive an adaptation squatting 120lbs for any sets across? I am only trying to draw out the underlying principle that makes Reynold's assertion true.

I don't know that he can't. Surely it's not the best way for a novice lifter to train, but it doesn't mean that he won't make progress.

What's incorrect?
It is related to the point at hand because the question is how far towards volume and away from intensity can a trainee move and still make progress. And the answer is that volume has to rise as genetic potential is approached. Trainees further from their genetic potential are more intensity dependent and trainees closer to their genetic potential are more intensity sensitive.

Les gave the example of presumably intermediate women doing some work at 70% with 1RMs around 300lbs. Sounds right, but I think it just refines the point. Similarly Eric said that he used sets of 135 to get in work to get his press to 200lbs. Also seems right but also just refines the point since a 200lbs press is similar in terms of training advancement to a 500lbs deadlift.


Do you have an example where sets at 210lbs create an adaptive stress such that it will better a 300 1RM?

I do, and several people on this board do as well, but does it matter? What is the physiological difference between a 500lbs squatter doing sets of 70% and a 250lbs squatter doing the same?

[coldfire]

One thing that is highlighted in this particular thread is that many of those involved seem to think that there is the Aasgard Approach vs the RTS inspired approach and that is where the dividing line is - the two options. The reality is that there are legions of big strong lifters out there who have never heard of either approach, do their own thing that doesn't conform to either model, and still get strong. And no, they are not all genetic freaks who take steroids.

Sure, people got strong using many different methods. But that doesn't mean that there is no unifying theory that can explain and predict progress. Wouldn't you want to have a model with close to 100% success rate, regardless of the population you are training?