starting strength gym
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kingwood TX
    Posts
    8,914

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Hartigan View Post
    Hi Andy, which paragraphs did you write in the article?
    My thoughts are interlaced throughout the body of the article

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    19

    Default Conventional Wisdom

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Baker (KSC) View Post
    My thoughts are interlaced throughout the body of the article
    Andy, many of your program templates, some of which I have purchased, are percentage based off of 1RM lifts. They utilize a peaking cycle up to a test day in which the new PRs are used for the next cycle. Below is a quote from the Garage Gym Warrior program.

    "Testing the Lifts
    At the conclusion of the training cycle it is recommended that trainees test new
    maximums in order to (1) measure progress (2) set up bench marks for the next
    training cycle."

    "Follow the testing week, it is recommended you take
    1-2 weeks of easy/light training and then you can hop back into this for another
    12 week run."

    The article is clearly not recommending this approach, and contradicts your program templates. Can you clarify your position please?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kingwood TX
    Posts
    8,914

    Default

    Sure. It's a 12-13 week peaking cycle, where volume starts high and is lowered during the course of the cycle culminating in a test at the end of the cycle, which may or may not take place in a meet. Because its an HLM Cycle there must be some mechanism in place to illustrate the relationship of one day to the next. Mon - 4 x 6, Weds 2 x 6, Fri - 3 x 6 is meaningless if the trainee doesn't know how much approximate offset in weight there should be from one day to the next. If I have YOUR training data, I don't really need the percentages, I can go off YOUR last week of training or your last cycle of training, etc. But in the absence of data on a specific individual I've used % as a proxy for load.

    We did the same thing in Practical Programming. Rip wasn't thrilled with the use of % in some of those programming templates, but although imperfect, it's better than saying "just go lighter" on this day or "just kinda go medium here".

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    147

    Default

    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.



    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.
    Thanks for the response.

    I used "more work" twice, and ambiguously. What I had in mind was a slight decrease in intensity, as compared to late-LP or TM, in exchange for increased volume and tonnage. If a trainee can trade intensity day PRs on TM for more volume and tonnage at a slightly lower intensity (not the very low intensity volume work discussed in the article), and increased work load per absolute unit of time (say one week) as compared to the novice LP, would they have better long term results? I think any intermediate trainee could make that trade, without it indicating that they had cut their LP short.

    On #1, I've read the book multiple times. I don't have a settled view yet, so no argument one way or the other at this point. Just questions. The article and ensuing conversation have certainly given me plenty to think about. Thanks again to the three authors.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    157

    Default

    I've been thinking about the argument that programming should be simplest possible last couple of days. I think we can all agree that human body is a pretty fucking complex system. It's a chaos basically. And when you throw training variables at it, it gets even more complex. So simplifying everything is pretty appealing. However, simple is not always optimal and the question here is really not: "does it work?". Let me use a math analogy here. I'm going to use an anecdote involving one of the greatest mathematician of all times - Gauss. For punishment, teacher told the class to calculate the sum of first 100 numbers - 1+2+3+...+99+100. Little Gauss came up with the formula that calculates the sum of whatever first N numbers you gave to him. The solution to this is complicated for the average human being. The simplest method here is go and start summing up the numbers. However that will require quite some time, therefore it's not as efficient.

    Fortunately, we are decently aware of how our body responds to training variables so we can plan according to that. Unfortunately, if we perceive manipulating the variables as shiny, complex and therefore appealing to the regular folk, we are not going to even try to understand the variables. The literature, believe it or not, points us to the right direction in manipulating those variables. It shows us what kind of impact changing any of the variables will have. For example if you decide to do paused squats instead of squats, it will not have as significant impact on the lifter as changing the volume or intensity. So slightly changing the exercise selection is not really adding a layer of complexity.

    For the purpose of my argument, I'll comment on Jordan's The Bridge. First reaction for a novice who just end his LP, and who decided to take a look at the program, is going to be: "what the shit is this?!". I think the reaction is totally appropriate because a guy who did almost the same workout for the past couple of months now has to learn 14 different exercises , do sets @6 before going to a heavy set which is @8. "What does @ even mean???". So there are basically 2 kinds of people here - those who find this appealing and those who find this repulsive. I'm the latter. However, if you understand the variables and if you ask someone who made the bridge: "Hey, I really don't wanna do the pin squats, can I pause squat or something?", the answer is most likely going to be: "yeah, sure". If you don't understand the variables the question might be: "Hey, I really hate the tempo squats, can I throw them out", to which the answer would likely be: "are you really asking me this?!?!?".

    So, again, I believe no one is questioning if the methods work. Surely, there's advantages to such approach like hitting PR's every week. However, hitting a PR does not necessarily mean the lifter got stronger since there's much more variables in play. If a lifter is going to lift weights for more than 6 months, it's probably more wise to think long term. If you're thinking long term, tools like RPE start making sense even though it could be inappropriate for some lifters and even though it's a subjective non ideal assessment. Finally, I don't think simplicity should be an axiom for programming if you know how to manipulate variables although it certainly has it's place for some lifters at some times.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whale View Post
    Surely, there's advantages to such approach like hitting PR's every week. However, hitting a PR does not necessarily mean the lifter got stronger since there's much more variables in play.
    Hitting PRs every week does not necessarily mean the lifter got stronger. Got it. Completely change all the variables and then speculate about which of them worked. Our idea is that we change the fewest number of variables at a time. You don't like the scientific method, or systematics. You like an appeal to complexity, and you're willing to ignore the data generated by decades of experience with our approach. Fine with me. Carry on.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Completely change all the variables and then speculate about which of them worked. Our idea is that we change the fewest number of variables at a time.
    I understand where this is coming from. And this is great approach if effects of all variables are random. However, effects are not random and we only have few important variables to vary.
    You like an appeal to complexity
    I just said I don't.
    Hitting PRs every week does not necessarily mean the lifter got stronger. Got it.
    I was talking about short term week to week progress, not about 3 months of adding weight to the bar.
    you're willing to ignore the data generated by decades of experience with our approach.
    Nope, your approach is probably better than 99% of approaches on the internet.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fredericton, Canada
    Posts
    651

    Default

    Didn't Einstein say something to the effect of "Simplify things as much as necessary, but no more". Empirically, there are a couple of things in play - physiological response, and psychological compliance. Some folks may need more complexity to maintain compliance, because they get bored with less variation. For those folks, tart the thing up a bit, because compliance with a glitzy program that is unnecessarily wingy is better than eating doritos on the couch. But if folks are instead motivated by measurably climbing strength numbers, then save the complications for when the body won't respond anymore to a stricter diet of simple shit.

    Staying simpler longer will probably work better, so long as the program is actually oriented to goals you care about. But doing any program regularly, even if it is adjusted more to retain compliance than to most speedily build performance, is better than nothing at all, or haphazard training.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Hitting PRs every week does not necessarily mean the lifter got stronger. Got it. Completely change all the variables and then speculate about which of them worked. Our idea is that we change the fewest number of variables at a time. You don't like the scientific method, or systematics. You like an appeal to complexity, and you're willing to ignore the data generated by decades of experience with our approach. Fine with me. Carry on.
    If the weight on the bar goes up by 5lbs but the effort in order to lift the weight is significantly harder, as verified by an objective measure, how can we say that the lifter is stronger?

    I have read the article numerous times now and I think there are good points for consideration. That said, I also think that someone should answer Ryan’s question from earlier in this thread and my question above. If we’re going to talk about it, let’s do it and keep the hand waiving to a minimum.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    Didn't Einstein say something to the effect of "Simplify things as much as necessary, but no more". Empirically, there are a couple of things in play - physiological response, and psychological compliance. Some folks may need more complexity to maintain compliance, because they get bored with less variation. For those folks, tart the thing up a bit, because compliance with a glitzy program that is unnecessarily wingy is better than eating doritos on the couch. But if folks are instead motivated by measurably climbing strength numbers, then save the complications for when the body won't respond anymore to a stricter diet of simple shit.

    Staying simpler longer will probably work better, so long as the program is actually oriented to goals you care about. But doing any program regularly, even if it is adjusted more to retain compliance than to most speedily build performance, is better than nothing at all, or haphazard training.
    And people are going to do that whether I like it or not. I don't care, since I know that the compliance rate is far less than 5% anyway. The article was a statement of our position, and reflects our thinking about the best way to proceed. You have my permission to train any way you want to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    If the weight on the bar goes up by 5lbs but the effort in order to lift the weight is significantly harder, as verified by an objective measure, how can we say that the lifter is stronger?
    We can't, if it happens once. We can if it happens several weeks in a row, enough to add 40 more pounds to a set of 5. In other words, we can if planned programming resulted in the increased in force production capacity as demonstrated by a continuing increase in work set PRs on a weekly basis. Surely you are not saying that this can't occur.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •