The Only Emphasis Is Strength | Mark Rippetoe

[stef]

I am a 50-year-old guy who squats a bit over three plates. By definition I look like a 50-year-old guy who squats over three plates.

Wrong. You look like a 50-year-old tompaynter squatting a bit over three plates. More specifically, you look like a 50-year-old tompaynter squatting a bit over three plates at whatever weight and bodycomp you're currently sitting. That's how these thing work.

You can modify your overall look somewhat by stopping training certain areas while keeping up others, wearing different clothes, surgery, and using drugs to shift proportions and emphasize/deemphasize different aspects of your physique. Those are the breaks because genetics.

[Sturw]

I am a 50-year-old guy who squats a bit over three plates. By definition I look like a 50-year-old guy who squats over three plates. But I haven't added much size to my legs.

The First Three Questions | Mark Rippetoe

A Clarification | Mark Rippetoe

Chuck Norris - IMDb

[tompaynter]

Wrong. You look like a 50-year-old tompaynter squatting a bit over three plates. More specifically, you look like a 50-year-old tompaynter squatting a bit over three plates at whatever weight and bodycomp you're currently sitting. That's how these thing work.

You can modify your overall look somewhat by stopping training certain areas while keeping up others, wearing different clothes, surgery, and using drugs to shift proportions and emphasize/deemphasize different aspects of your physique. Those are the breaks because genetics.

Or maybe I could "do each descending set [of 5X5] in a state of incomplete recovery...to improve work capacity and promote hypertrophy"? (Andy Baker) Or do some accessory movements like leg press to add "a little hypertrophy"? (Scott Acosta)

I really don't understand your point here. I have said that strength increases require hypertrophy, and this is just not arguable. If you don't like your legs at 315x5, get your squat up to 405x5 and your legs will have grown, because that is the mechanism by which your strength increases. You seem to think the bodybuilders have a secret way of increasing leg size without doing this. Ronnie Coleman and Dorian Yates can explain this to you, and maybe you'll believe them. But here's the bad news: if you have shitty genetics for legs, you're not going to get big legs, no matter how much volume and RPE you do on the leg press.

Yes, getting stronger requires hypertrophy. The same person's legs will be bigger at 405X5 than at 315X5. It does not follow from either of these truisms that, once one's squat is 315, getting the squat to 405 is the most efficient way to gain muscular size in the legs. Looking at how actual bodybuilders train, it seems likely that something like high-volume, short rest, drop-set type work on the leg press will produce size faster than training to get to 405, while producing max strength more slowly. (Whereas I am fully willing to believe that getting ones squat from 135 to 315 IS the fastest way to gain size as well as strength.)

Or if not leg presses, squats done with shorter rest periods. It's pretty clear from SS materials that long rest periods are best for gaining strength, right? But your coauthor says shorter rest periods promote hypertrophy. Putting those two statements together, we have Long rest periods on the squat are best for developing strength; shorter rest periods are suboptimal for strength but effective for hypertrophy.

See pages 51 and 64 of PPST for further discussion of the effectiveness of BB-style training for hypertrophy. Pg. 51: "[S]ome individuals with smaller muscle mass are stronger than individuals with much more extensive muscular development derived from bodybuilding training." Flip that sentence around and we could say, "Some individuals with less strength are bigger/more muscular from bodybuilding training than individuals with more extensive strength development derived from strength training." There's an obvious inconsistency between that and saying that hypertrophy gains only come through and are proportional to strength gains. Yes, one way to get bigger would be to get one's squat to 405; but per PPST, another way would be to gain "much more extensive muscular development" through "bodybuilding training".

I don't understand the point of denying this. I feel like I am going to leave this conversation muttering under my breath like Galileo: "And yet it grows."

[Mark Rippetoe]

I get that you really REALLY want me to give a fuck about volume/light weights/short rest periods/muscularity/being more swole, but I don't. You can't make me. If you want to do 5 sets of 8-10 reps on your leg press machine with 60 seconds rest, go ahead. If you don't want to do the work necessary to get your squat up to 405, don't do it. You're still going to have shitty legs.

[Shiva Kaul]

But at a minimum shouldn't the organization avoid saying things that about Crossfit training/bodybuilding that are obviously untrue?

You are deliberately misinterpreting Rip’s statement. He said it’s silly to focus on aesthetics, because it’s largely out of your control. He made a value judgement, not the cockeyed assertion about optimality that you are trying to fabricate.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

Tom,

Let's do it like this.....What would the commonality be between more or less maximal sets of 5 at 405 with complete rest periods, and sets of 5 at 385 with incomplete rests? What would the difference be?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I just find this type of process useful.

Andy

[Scott.Acosta]

Tom,

This is pretty cut and dry from my perspective. If a person isn't already strong, the best bang for their buck is to get strong. The barbell movements do all the heavy lifting (pun intended) when it comes to hypertrophy. Smaller exercises play a role, but they need to be well selected and they have to be trained hard. Can't just check the box.

It really doesn't matter what a persons end goal is - Crossfit, bodybuilding, Olympic lifting, any number of field sports. They would be wise to go through an HONEST NLP. And, even after that there is still plenty of low hanging fruit. So, if a person is dissatisfied with their physique after an NLP I would suggest to keep getting stronger. If they want to add in some arm work at that point, be my guest. At least they'll be able to get more out of it than prior to their NLP.

A person shoots themselves in the foot if they lose site of strength being the primary driver of their progress. I've seen this happen a bunch of times. A person decides they want to train more for physique, and immediately omits all heavy lifting from their programming. No more sets of 5 squats. No more pulling from the floor. No more pressing. Instead, they hack squat, leg press, and do an unfathomable number of dumbbell and cable exercises. Very weird.

[Jovan Dragisic]

You are only asking this because you have not pushed your squat past 315. A 315 squat is below baseline for a man. It seems heavy, but that’s just because you have not loaded 330. I have seen an astounding difference in leg size getting from 315 to 350, so much so that I’m contemplating staying here for a while, I am not sure I want to get much bigger than this.

[EdTice]

See pages 51 and 64 of PPST for further discussion of the effectiveness of BB-style training for hypertrophy. Pg. 51: "[S]ome individuals with smaller muscle mass are stronger than individuals with much more extensive muscular development derived from bodybuilding training." Flip that sentence around and we could say, "Some individuals with less strength are bigger/more muscular from bodybuilding training than individuals with more extensive strength development derived from strength training." There's an obvious inconsistency between that and saying that hypertrophy gains only come through and are proportional to strength gains. Yes, one way to get bigger would be to get one's squat to 405; but per PPST, another way would be to gain "much more extensive muscular development" through "bodybuilding training".

I don't understand the point of denying this. I feel like I am going to leave this conversation muttering under my breath like Galileo: "And yet it grows."

Two serious questions. The first is do you speak English as a first language? The second is when have you last had a mental health screening?

"[S]ome individuals with less education, work ethic and discipline who win the lottery are wealthier than individuals with much more education and work ethic who save their money and invest wisely." Flip that sentence around. "Some individuals are wealthier from winning the lottery than individuals who got a masters degree, worked hard, saved money, and invested wisely." One way to accumulate wealth would be to work hard, save, and invest. But another would be to win the lottery. I don't understand the point of denying this. Blah blah blah.

If I understand your complaint it's that we can't give you a system for winning the genetic lottery?

There are many "wealth advisers" for better or worse (not much different than "strength coaches") who work with middle-class people saving for retirement. Does that mean those people are qualified to help a new lottery winner? Well maybe. Kind of. Would you go to those advisers and say "I didn't win the lottery but if I did, what would you recommend that I do?" and then be angry if they politely stated that they weren't qualified to help you?

[tompaynter]

Tom,

This is pretty cut and dry from my perspective. If a person isn't already strong, the best bang for their buck is to get strong. The barbell movements do all the heavy lifting (pun intended) when it comes to hypertrophy. Smaller exercises play a role, but they need to be well selected and they have to be trained hard. Can't just check the box.

It really doesn't matter what a persons end goal is - Crossfit, bodybuilding, Olympic lifting, any number of field sports. They would be wise to go through an HONEST NLP. And, even after that there is still plenty of low hanging fruit. So, if a person is dissatisfied with their physique after an NLP I would suggest to keep getting stronger. If they want to add in some arm work at that point, be my guest. At least they'll be able to get more out of it than prior to their NLP.

A person shoots themselves in the foot if they lose site of strength being the primary driver of their progress. I've seen this happen a bunch of times. A person decides they want to train more for physique, and immediately omits all heavy lifting from their programming. No more sets of 5 squats. No more pulling from the floor. No more pressing. Instead, they hack squat, leg press, and do an unfathomable number of dumbbell and cable exercises. Very weird.

Thanks, this is useful. What about adding in some leg work? Even Rip says, Yeah you can do some curls. If a trainee is already strong, can it be productive to either use accessory exercises, or squats/deadlift variations done for more reps and/or with shorter rest?

Tom,

Let's do it like this.....What would the commonality be between more or less maximal sets of 5 at 405 with complete rest periods, and sets of 5 at 385 with incomplete rests? What would the difference be?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I just find this type of process useful.

Andy

Commonalities: both are compound movements using the muscles in normal human movement patterns. Both are quite close to maximal effort (385 is about 95% of 405).

Differences: I'm not knowledgeable enough about cell function and so forth to give chapter and verse here. I suppose the sets at 405 would be done with the muscles' store of ATP fully recharged. The sets at 385 would not. Therefore the sets at 385 might force the muscles to adapt to the stimulus of working while incompletely recovered, and/or stimulate the body to improve its ability to recharge ATP faster.

Another way to look at the differences would be: according to many knowledgeable people, including as I understand it you, the sets at 385 could be an excellent way to induce hypertrophy, due to physiological factors I don't understand. I.e. whatever adaptations the body makes in response to heavy sets done with incomplete rest, those adaptations tend to make muscles bigger--size increases that may not occur if only sets with complete rest are done.