starting strength gym
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71

Thread: Rip et al: Intermediate and Advanced Training: A Few Ideas

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by whale View Post
    I believe no one is saying that.
    No. When we do stupid shit, we tend to say we're doing it in a way that makes it sound smart.

    I say "we" because I'm as prone to this as anybody else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    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?
    The more pertinent questions are: how many people is a coach working with professionally on the platform, and what are their current stats?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Thanks to Rip et al for the article. As an early intermediate, I am appreciative of the work that went into putting the material together. I'm hoping that my questions will be useful for continuing the conversation.

    "What often gets lost in discussions about volume is the fact that as a lifter moves upward through the levels of training advancement, and as the overload event obviously becomes longer, volume is calculated across the now-longer overload event. The Novice overload event is a workout, so the volume and tonnage are calculated for the workout. Intermediate trainees are using a week's training as the overload event, and the math reflects this time period. A week's training in a Novice program and a week's training in Texas Method are not equivalent overload events – the Novice week is 3 overload events, and the TM example is one overload event. As every lifter progresses through the levels of training advancement, the volume in each increasingly-long overload event is higher than it was in the previous programming iteration as a natural consequence of the changing nature of what constitutes the overload."

    If I follow the arguments, this is at least partly a response to the argument in "Into the Great Wide Open." []Starting Strength Setting aside 5/3/1, that article charges TM with a reduction in volume and tonnage as compared to SSLP. Whereas Rip et al calculate these variables over the course of a single overload event, Feigenbaum calculates them with respect to absolute time -- that is, one week for both SSLP and TM.

    On the one hand, it makes sense to calculate these variables on a timeline relative to the trainee's training advancement (48 hours for the novice, 7 days for the intermediate, etc). On the other hand, if I can do and recover from more work in a given period of absolute time, it seems *possible* that I could elicit a more significant adaptation.

    Questions:
    What is the relation between relative and absolute time for the purposes of evaluating programming variables?
    Is progressive increase in training stress better measured in absolute or relative time?
    What effect does doing and recovering from more work over a given period of absolute time have on training outcomes?

    I have neither the knowledge or experience to evaluate these claims, since I'm only a couple of months into intermediate training myself. Thanks in advance for any effort taken to respond to them.

    [Full disclosure: Anyone who looks at my training log will see that I'm currently doing "the bridge." Since this appears to be a pretty divisive topic, I thought I'd offer a brief explanation in case anyone feels that I'm 'taking a side.' I chose it because I thought it would be educational to experiment with a few supplemental lifts and with RPE, especially since I'm self-taught and don't have a more experienced lifter around to guide my training. Hopefully that won't color the reception of my questions.]

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kingwood TX
    Posts
    8,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    Is a One-Lift-per-Day 5x5 an effective intermediate and/or advanced programming methodology?
    It may be. Depending on the lifter. If you can generate enough stress in a single session to make an improvement the following week then, yes, it's an effective program. It is not an imperative that all lifters squat multiple days per week to make weekly progress. If I were to make this claim I would be ignoring the thousands of big strong lifters who got that way by following a Monday - Squat Day, Weds - Bench Day, Friday - Deadlift Day. So are we going to say these are all outliers / genetic freaks / drug abusers, or are we going to say that with enough time under the bar you develop the ability to generate stress with less work and are therefore able to train less frequently? This isn't going to work for everybody, and that is why we have higher frequency intermediate programs as well.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonfla View Post
    On the one hand, it makes sense to calculate these variables on a timeline relative to the trainee's training advancement (48 hours for the novice, 7 days for the intermediate, etc). On the other hand, if I can do and recover from more work in a given period of absolute time, it seems *possible* that I could elicit a more significant adaptation.
    If that's the case, then you are not an Intermediate trainee, and you bailed on the LP too early.

    Questions:
    What is the relation between relative and absolute time for the purposes of evaluating programming variables?
    Is progressive increase in training stress better measured in absolute or relative time?
    What effect does doing and recovering from more work over a given period of absolute time have on training outcomes?
    1. Unless you disagree with our analysis of the levels of training advancement -- and if so, we'll require your argument -- the time in question is the length of the overload event. This is explained in the article and in the book, which it was assumed you have read.

    2. See #1 above.

    3. It is an excellent metric that determines whether or not you are using the correct programming level.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    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.
    Rip, you can only pretend that the overload event in this hypothetical exists in a vacuum for so long.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    The more pertinent questions are: how many people is a coach working with professionally on the platform, and what are their current stats?
    The more pertinent questions are the ones I'm asking. It's probably why they're being flippantly dodged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    If that's the case, then you are not an Intermediate trainee, and you bailed on the LP too early.
    How do you explain world class IPF lifters occasionally making session to session progress multiple times in a cycle? Should these 500+ wilks lifters go on to LP?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Hartigan View Post
    Rip, you can only pretend that the overload event in this hypothetical exists in a vacuum for so long.
    Wonderfully informative response. Tells us everything we need to know.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hi,

    Thanks for the great article, ive been kind of unsure what to do for the past couple months of my training after completing SSLP. My original plan was to just do the standard texas method as layed out in practical programming and then switch to the 4 day version once i had ran through the original version, but i was put of doing this after reading into the great wide open (which i still think is a really good article) so instead I tried the bridge which worked great for my press and bench. Now im currently doing a HLM as layed out in andy bakers article on his website which has worked really well, because of this i decided i was going to give the texas method a shot seeing as he recommended doing in the article as well. This dose not mean that ive given up on using rpe or anything I just dont think im ready for it yet need to get stronger first. Not sure if ill do 3 day or 4 day version tho its not a time issue im just not sure which would be best im 22 and male and not underweight so i guess my original plan should still work out alright, if you have a recommendation it would be appreciated.

    However my original reasons for not doing the texas method were not because i didnt think it would work or because it was old and outdated far from it actually, it was because of its reputation of putting people in the graveyard and then they would have to try to figure out how to get unstuck or ask on the programming board and wait for a reply which could take a while, wasting more time that could have been spent training more productively or optimally as people like to say . I think this is what some people mean by optimal, would it be better to do a program that was less difficult so the likely hood of failing and resetting the weights was lower and the way they would go about doing this would be to do a program that relied more on reps or volume to push progress rather than a really heavy set of five on friday, i dont know anywhere enough about programming to say if that works or not i mean my guess is that eventually those sets across at moderate to high reps or gonna have to get really difficult at some point in order for your body to adapt which would explain why all the dude bros in the gym doing really high reps but never really lifting heavy are not particularly muscular or strong but again i have not a clue.

    Thanks for the great article and your constant effort to refine this process to improve it for everyone its made a big difference to alot of people especially me.
    thank you for all your work.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    I think you should do the 4-Day Split, as mentioned in the article. And you should be more careful with your typing if you post on this forum.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Baker (KSC) View Post
    It may be. Depending on the lifter. If you can generate enough stress in a single session to make an improvement the following week then, yes, it's an effective program. It is not an imperative that all lifters squat multiple days per week to make weekly progress. If I were to make this claim I would be ignoring the thousands of big strong lifters who got that way by following a Monday - Squat Day, Weds - Bench Day, Friday - Deadlift Day. So are we going to say these are all outliers / genetic freaks / drug abusers, or are we going to say that with enough time under the bar you develop the ability to generate stress with less work and are therefore able to train less frequently? This isn't going to work for everybody, and that is why we have higher frequency intermediate programs as well.
    Hi Andy, which paragraphs did you write in the article?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Wonderfully informative response. Tells us everything we need to know.
    IPF affiliate records are public, so is my log and all of the information you seek. PM me if you have trouble finding them.

    In the article you list the novice and intermediate overload events to be:

    NOVICE
    Volume: 15
    Tonnage, 5625lbs

    INTERMEDIATE
    Volume: 30
    Tonnage 10,775lbs

    Suppose this athlete had a good run following the model: Accumulating volume on Monday, deloading Tues-Thurs, peaking on the Friday and added 100lbs to his squat and decided to move onto monthly planning.

    His last overload event would be something like:
    Volume: 30
    Tonnage: 13,150lbs (430x5x5, 480x5)

    According to the model, for this hypothetical athlete, an effective advanced (monthly) overload event could be: Accumulating volume weeks 1-3, deloading/peaking week 4 and attempting a PR.

    Would it be fair to say the numbers could look something like this for the athlete in this hypothetical?:

    ADVANCED (4 Week) OVERLOAD EVENT
    Volume: 60
    Tonnage: 26,500lbs

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fredericton, Canada
    Posts
    651

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Add my thanks for the article. I've been enjoying the discussion of some of these issues in the Barbell Logic podcasts, in the Barbell Prescription and Barbell Medicine contributions to the conversation, and setting them alongside Andy Baker's HLM writings and my admittedly outdated Practical Programming 1st edition.

    What I'm getting from this is the validity of minimum effective dose, of changing one variable at a time to gauge how one's body responds, and of continuing to base training plans on one's training history rather than on strength performances in competition or analogous events.

    The logic makes sense, and frankly, I'm grateful that someone has taken the effort to lay out the logic as a continuation but simply a different expression of the principles inherent in the SS approach.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •