The Only Emphasis Is Strength | Mark Rippetoe

[Chiaki Nitya]

I remember once time at the gym a newer lifter came up to my friend Russell and I and asked how we got our traps so big (my traps aren't very big, mind you.) I said, "Russ, what's your best deadlift?" And he said "705" and I looked at the kid and said "Get your deadlift to 705 and I guarantee you'll have big traps."

[Mark Rippetoe]

What if you aren't angry at Rip, but, given his complete repudiation of hypertrophy training, you are bemused by his recommendation in PPST that intermediate trainees who are "most interested in gaining muscular weight" do "a higher-volume workout" consisting of "5 sets of 10 across"? Pg. 115. Will getting your squat up make those words not appear on the page? Because if my exercise routine can change words in books that would be neato!

I've changed my mind, primarily because of guys like you. If you can do sets of 10 across at 405, like I did when I was 28, the higher reps have a different effect than they will for guys like you who are not very strong. Not all high reps are created equal, but we've already discussed this. What is your PR set of 5?

[tompaynter]

I've changed my mind, primarily because of guys like you. If you can do sets of 10 across at 405, like I did when I was 28, the higher reps have a different effect than they will for guys like you who are not very strong. Not all high reps are created equal, but we've already discussed this. What is your PR set of 5?

That's interesting. That's a real answer. But don't blame people for pointing to the contradiction when you and other writers on your site really have said different things--opposite things--over time.

I have already explained why my training numbers are not relevant. We are talking about your writing, not my training numbers. Whether my squat PR is 95 or 705 it wouldn't change what your books and articles say.

[Jovan Dragisic]

What if you aren't angry at Rip, but, given his complete repudiation of hypertrophy training

I have read all the books and listened to all the podcasts and there is no such thing as Rip’s complete repudiation of hypertrophy training. I will add another thing, I am personally in this more for the hypertrophy and “aesthetics” than I am performance and strength. I was just able to follow the relatively simple advice on adding five more pounds to the squat until I was pleased enough with my aesthetics.

[Szymon]

1. Have you been satisfied with the muscular size you achieved through SS training, i.e. 5-rep sets on the big lifts? Did you achieve your satisfactory results during your NLP, or sometime later?

2. If not, was/is there a part of your body that lagged?

3. Did you modify your training to address the lack? How? Did it work?

4. Do you give a shit about muscular size, or is being strong enough?

1. Yes. Im still working on getting bigger and stronger but I have been the most succesfull eith SS method. I was training bodybuilding style for many years as a teenager and into my early 20. Not much succes there.

2. No, Im happy with my overall proportion. Chinups were most generous for my arms size, not the 3x8-10 curls.

3. Yes, i was experimenting after NLP with mixing in some bodybuilding but i was not succesfull. A mix of 80/20 strength and olympic lifts was the best for me.
4. Yes it is important for me to look good. For me my dream body is Bill Goldberg. My main goal is to deadlift 300 kg, squat 250kg and press +120 kg before 40 (im 34)

[Mark Rippetoe]

I have already explained why my training numbers are not relevant. We are talking about your writing, not my training numbers. Whether my squat PR is 95 or 705 it wouldn't change what your books and articles say.

Okay, tom, do your 6 sets of 10 with 185 and we'll all marvel at your huge legs. You win. Leave me alone.

[Steve Cox]

Ah, the Starting Strength forums, where people can have reasonable discussions based on fact and reason...where people respond to the thoughts and questions raised rather than launching personal attacks. Such a respite from the rest of the internet.

If anyone is still reading this thread, I'd be interested to hear your own experiences with SS training and muscle growth.

1. Have you been satisfied with the muscular size you achieved through SS training, i.e. 5-rep sets on the big lifts? Did you achieve your satisfactory results during your NLP, or sometime later?

2. If not, was/is there a part of your body that lagged?

3. Did you modify your training to address the lack? How? Did it work?

4. Do you give a shit about muscular size, or is being strong enough?

A lot of the responses have fallen in the camp of "just get your squat up and you'll get big". One person said this really kicked in between 315 and 350. Let's hear some other people's experiences.

1. Yes and yes.

2. If any part is lagging, it would be rear delts and traps - but only temporarily.

3. If I'm worried, I might supplement with some reverse flys or such - but I honestly don't much care. I do biceps and triceps work on Tuesday and Thursday (non-training days). Mostly, just trying to get back to unassisted chin-ups/pull-ups.

4. Strength, flexibility (and agility for this near 60yo guy) is much more important than aesthetics.

Last thought as a summary to all this - what good is a bodybuilder body if you can't do shit with it?

[tompaynter]

I've changed my mind, primarily because of guys like you. If you can do sets of 10 across at 405, like I did when I was 28, the higher reps have a different effect than they will for guys like you who are not very strong. Not all high reps are created equal, but we've already discussed this. What is your PR set of 5?

Shout-out to everyone who jumped in to say how dumb I was and I suck at reading comprehension. I read it right. Rip used to teach forms of hypertrophy training. He changed his mind. The contradictions I identified are real. You are bad and you should feel bad.

[Chiaki Nitya]

Just to echo Rip's experience... for me personally, using 5's, 3's, and 2's to build my strength up to the point where I can squat 500x10 somewhat easily did way more for my "leg hypertrophy" than all the sets of 10's, 12's, and 15's I wasted time doing before I started focusing on strength.

[Theseahawk]

That's interesting. That's a real answer. But don't blame people for pointing to the contradiction when you and other writers on your site really have said different things--opposite things--over time.

I have already explained why my training numbers are not relevant. We are talking about your writing, not my training numbers. Whether my squat PR is 95 or 705 it wouldn't change what your books and articles say.

Think of hypertrophy as being represented by a balloon being blown up with air. Think of how strong you are as being represented by a solid box that the balloon is inside of.

Get strong so the box is big enough for the balloon to be blown up to its full size.