Rep Scheme Question for SS

[Asclepius]

Hi Mark,

I am confused as to the reasoning behind the Starting Strength rep scheme of 3 sets of 5 reps for all exercises except for power cleans. According to this rep scheme chart from Starting Strength, wouldn't 3 sets of 3 reps (3x3) or 5 sets of 3 reps (3x5) make more sense since it works all aspects of strength much better and power very well at the same time?

Thank you!

[Mark Rippetoe]

This table is from 1st edition PPST. I has been revised. Power is worked when volitionally or inherently high velocities are performed with a rep range and load that permits the expression of power. Please clarify your question.

[Asclepius]

Well, if you would be so kind, would you mind posting the revised chart?

If you look at the first chart, it would appear that 3 reps works all areas of strength and power the best (it is the only number of reps that hits each strength and power field in the "dark" zone or "Large Effect" according to the chart I posted).

So, you didn't really answer my question, but I guess I will clarify: In the original chart I posted, 3 reps appears to be best to achieve strength and power, but especially with strength. This would lead me to believe that 3 reps is ideal for a set. Why is this not so with your Starting Strength program, where you use 5 reps for all lifts except for Power Cleans where you use 3 reps?

[Mark Rippetoe]

I hate to appear impertinent, but I'd rather you bought the book. We use 5s in all these programs because they work better than 3s. You, however, are free to follow your interpretation of the chart.

[Asclepius]

I hate to appear impertinent, but I'd rather you bought the book. We use 5s in all these programs because they work better than 3s. You, however, are free to follow your interpretation of the chart.

Mark, don't worry, I understand. I have the older edition of your book though which doesn't have this updated chart of which you speak. If you can give me a better (hopefully scientific, or at the very least an anecdotal) explanation as to why 5s are better than 3s, as well as explain why the chart I posted a link to is either wrong or how I am just not looking at it the right why, that would be greatly appreciated.

[Asclepius]

Wait a minute, I did get a hold of a newer copy of Practical Programming (third edition, 2006) and just checked that chart and it is the same as what I posted above.

So... I guess I have to ask again, why are 5s better than 3s, from either a scientific (preferable) or first-hand explanation (I think anecdotal was not the correct term).

[Mark Rippetoe]

Wait a minute, I did get a hold of a newer copy of Practical Programming (third edition, 2006) and just checked that chart and it is the same as what I posted above

You seem to have a book that does not exist. I suggest you obtain one of the titles we actually publish, read more, and type less.

[Asclepius]

It says Third Printing - Revised (2008). Is that not the third edition?

[Eric K]

Wait a minute, I did get a hold of a newer copy of Practical Programming (third edition, 2006) and just checked that chart and it is the same as what I posted above.

So... I guess I have to ask again, why are 5s better than 3s, from either a scientific (preferable) or first-hand explanation (I think anecdotal was not the correct term).

Jesus, man. Rip writes phenomenal books that explain all this shit. He started the forum so that he could help people that put in the effort to read the book. He doesn't make any profit off of the site and is probably losing years of his life by essentially yelling at a wall of ignorance when people ask him questions that clearly and METICULOUSLY explained in the book. If you're too lazy to read it in the book, then what guarantee does he have that you'd even read (or understand) it here?!

Unfortunately, I come to the Q&A less any less because every day it seems to be some idiot, "Hey Rip, I don't want to do the program, but can you make it so I get everything without doing it?" "Hey Rip, I have an idiotic question that is clearly delineated in your book, but my pirated copy is missing a couple pages; since I've already ripped you off, can I waste some of your time, too?" And on, and on... I'm amazed he still offers this Q&A...

[Mark Rippetoe]

It says Third Printing - Revised (2008). Is that not the third edition?

Do you see the first little red and black rectangular looking thingee right under this post? Click on it and see where it takes you. For a Greek philosopher you're pretty slow.