Member
Umm, Mark, it's on page 156 of PPST3...Dunno. Not one of our programs.
TMPHBITEU
Right. That is in the intermediate section, which Baker wrote and I don't have memorized. It depends on how frequently the load is increased on the sets. Weekly is intermediate, and since it's in the Intermediate chapter, why would you ask if it's Advanced?
Member
After reading this thread for the past couple of days following my initial post I have learned the following 3 important things:
1. Why there is a requirement for "above average intelligence" to training in SS. I always thought you, Rip, were being facetious about this. Apparently there is an inverse relationship between intelligence level and making simple and clear ideas overly complicated and muddled. The less intelligent you are the more complicated you have to make everything and the more obtuse your vision.
2. Despite your crusty cranky exterior and reputation apparently you are one of the kindest and most patient people in existence. Otherwise you surely would have turned green, ripped your clothing to shreds as your muscles swelled up and smashed your computer keyboard to pulp.
3. Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise.
P.S. I read the article again, real slow, I still really enjoyed it and found it helpful.
Member
Sorry for not being overly clear and somewhat deliberately obtuse.
I wasn't asking you directly, rather baiting the poster (Ryan Hartigan as it were) who was questioning why only the volume day of TM couldn't be the effective stressor.
The point being that it can, with potential caveats and under certain circumstances. Like for example high level athletes or MMA fighters with physically intensive skill practice, and with the addition of suitable assistance work for additional volume.
Which is of course slightly different than the methodology and who it would be appropriate for using of the TM. At least according to the book [page 156-157 of PPST3 (that's Practical Programming for Strength Training 3rd Edition for the uninitiated which there seem to be a lot of based on some of the stuff that gets posted around here I know its easier to blather about on the internet than to read a book or books a bunch of times until you start to gain a basic understanding of it's contents and then attempt to put that knowledge into a practical application but instead arguing about mundane points that really have no effect on the overall training outcome anyway) for those who are interested in the One-Lift-per-Day 5x5, and a whole bunch of other pages for the TM], from which I garner most of my programming information, and I trust the experience of the authors. Relative to my experience that is, of which I have little.
Anyway, carry on...
Starting Strength Coach
Implicit in this whole discussion--and in the larger discussion about intermediate programming--is a very curious, unspoken assumption: that for decades we've been saddled with old-fashioned, benighted intermediate programs that just don't work. As if all the work done with Texas and HLM and four-day splits never got anybody anywhere, but we just kept using them anyway because all those "old guys" were stupid and couldn't think out of the box. But now, THANK GOD, we have shiny, complicated new programs that clearly work so much better because...well, because they're shiny and complicated. And new. And look at this spreadsheet! And they were invented by really strong new guys who aren't old guys, and who are totally jacked, so they must work. Out with the old. In with the new.
Except...the old programs do work. When used properly, they work like magic. And that's because any intermediate program built on the SRA cycle that adds weight to the bar in a regular, rational way will build strength in the post-novice period. We know this, not because some guru says so, not because of some abstract philosophizing about which program modulates the most or least tonnage or training density or whatever in the way that most favorably recapitulates somebody's pet theory. We know it precisely because these programs have been used productively for decades, and many people have gotten strong, even brutally strong, using them. We know it because a lot of us who make our living coaching athletes on the platform, day in and day out, still use these terribly old-fashioned approaches, and find them efficient, safe, and productive. When my lifters finish LP, I put them on Texas or HLM, and it works like a charm. Not very innovative or exciting. Just....effective.
I think the article did an excellent job of laying out the case for avoiding complexity when simple is still working, and it should be read and re-read by anybody who's serious about training or coaching. I think it makes the point with sound argument and observation. But at the end of the day, I think arguing about this stuff is kind of stupid. It's my own experience and the mandates of my own business (and, for that matter, a career in medical practice, where more complicated is rarely better) that I turn to. My clients pay me to get strong, and I have found I can get them strong using the same fundamental tools that have been around for a long time. If they didn't work, I guess I'd have to look harder at shiny, fancy, and complex. But they do work, so I'll keep things simple for now.
Member
ur gonna need bigger bait.Originally Posted by wiigelec
I'm positive that every 'program' I've ever run 'worked' to some degree. To me it's a question about finding what is optimal, for obvious reasons.
Is it possible TM works because the volume day represents a novel, adaptation causing stress which increases your 5RM? Or perhaps reducing the trainees tonnage by ~40% and introducing 5RMs allows them to taper and practice/display doing heavy reps better for a relatively short period of time? Aren't you interested in why this may be sub-optimal for the long term development of an athlete?
Arguing about a body of knowledge in it's infancy we all have a deep interest in is kind of stupid?
Member
One of the most instructive things about reading this forum from start to finish is watching Rip go from patiently answering variations on the same 5 very easily answer questions over and over again and giving people the benefit of the doubt even when it's fairly obvious they're trolling, to the present day status quo.
The stress recovery adaptation cycle clearly applies to crusty exteriors as well.
✓ Member
Nominating Sully's post for sticky on the programming board.
Member
I believe no one is saying that.
Especially when one side completely ignores the literature. Which is fair given the quality of research in this field. However I think most of the SSC's are trained to read it and draw useful conclusion from not so perfect studies. I wouldn't call this arguing though.I think arguing about this stuff is kind of stupid.
Sorry, I won't be sarcastic anymore.
It actually is. If you don't count the warmups. Which no one does.You keep saying "volume" as though it is a meaningful parameter in and of itself.
TMPHBITEU
In its infancy???? My god, man! Your lack of perspective here is fun to see, but you really should sit down. Let me ask you a question, if I might be permitted: what are your current lifts, age, height, and bodyweight? Because I think this is all merely theoretical to you and most of the people who have a problem with this article.
Posting Permissions
