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

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

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.

Yes, I think that looking at either long term increases in weight being used for a similar task or large increases in loading both indicate improvement in strength without any qualitative data being necessary.

That said, I think it is difficult to plan programming if we rely on the former- long term retrospective analysis. Waiting 4-6 weeks to determine that a program is or isn't working seems suboptimal if there is additional data that can be collected to inform our programming decisions in the context of a lifter who we don't expect large increases in weight on the bar.

Additionally, if the rep and volume prescriptions are changing then it becomes even more difficult to suss out programming management. I think that it is far more difficult to determine if 405 x 5 and 425 x 3 represent any difference in strength development with the existing programming. Some qualitative feedback could be very useful in the short term to manage programming decisions, e.g. how to manipulate stress application to drive the desired adaptation as efficiently as possible without compromising long term development.

In my view, adding weight to the bar weekly (or at some other interval) is the default recommendation provided the effort level is not substantially changed from what we suspect best drives progress. I assume-perhaps at my peril- that the effort exerted per set is correlated with the intensity level, i.e. how heavy it is.

We are trying to impart both the correct amount and correct type of stress in order to produce the desired adaptation. I do not think that more stress is always better in this paradigm, e.g. heavier isn't always better, even if it's harder". Rather, better stress is better. In this paradigm, regularly exposing a lifter to very heavy sets in the 83-90% range reps >1 seem to be more of a test or display of strength rather and tend to contribute significantly to strength development considering the training cost, e.g. performing a 5RM probably doesn't contribute much to strength development outside of making you better at a 5RM. I would consider these the real junk reps, where significantly more stress must be dealt given the realized adaptation. Can it work? Sure, but I think there are better options from a cost/benefit analysis.

Yes, regular practice of heavy weights is likely to make the lifter better at lifting heavy weights and there it would be foolish to leave these out in a strength program. On the other hand, training at intensities that do not produce the most significant improvement in strength outcomes while not compromising long term development is also foolish.

I also agree that complexity for the sake of complexity is foolish, but if we can generate better results with more complexity then why be restricted to a particular setup? I'm not saying that more variation or variables are better all the time, but rather there is a time and a place for these things. An interesting (to me) aside, sensitivity to training variables decreases as a lifter is exposed to them regularly, e.g. the Repeated Bout Effect. From that, it follows that some variation may actually produce a larger response at a given volume and intensity level than no variation, as the lifter is more sensitive to the novel stress. Again, not all stress is productive stress so the variations likely have a fairly narrow scope of transfer to driving up strength, but I did think it was interesting.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Thanks for the clear explanation. This is why the Barbell Medicine approach is distinctly different from Starting Strength.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Thanks for the explanation. This is why the Barbell Medicine approach is distinctly different from Starting Strength.

But it's really not. SSOC has people using RPE's (even novices!) and Barbell Medicine coaches a number of SSOC's who subsequently use similar training methodologies as I describe above. Hell, even The Bridge is being used by SSOC's for their clients.

Look, everyone wants you and I to have it out publicly and I just don't see it as that big of disagreement. I do think we disagree on some things and that's okay, but I don't think what is being described here as SS vs BBM from a programming methodology standpoint either.

We both agree stress must increase over time and the correct stress must be applied to the individual, yes?

We both agree that we will adjust a trainee's weight selection if we have eyes on him or her and it looks way too light or too heavy, yes?

We also both agree that training must reflect meaningful historical data. We may disagree on the way to best collect that data, sure, but that's more stylistic IMO.

We also both agree that distance coaching has a ton of limitations with a bunch of different solutions that may/may not work depending on the coach and the lifter.

That said, the problems I have are with the patently false claims made in this thread by others (not you) about intensity ranges, non contractile hypertrophy, and some contradictory statements to what has been written previously and this article. Additionally, the supposition that RPE cannot be useful is problematic considering how we select weights for our lifters on session 1 or how we pick attempts at a meet, or even adjusting loads on the fly.

We both know that qualitative data can be useful if applied appropriately. It doesn't always go that way, just as discreet load selection doesn't always work as planned.

[Elephant]

Thanks for the clear explanation. This is why the Barbell Medicine approach is distinctly different from Starting Strength.

In light of these distinctly different approaches, would you please clarify the skills needed to be a SSC? Clearly someone must be able to coach form according to the model and understand related mechanics.

Specifically, in this context, is any programming knowledge required beyond a general understanding of SRA and the ability to run a NLP?

[Leah Lutz]

Thanks for the clear explanation. This is why the Barbell Medicine approach is distinctly different from Starting Strength.

Additionally, if the rep and volume prescriptions are changing then it becomes even more difficult to suss out programming management. I think that it is far more difficult to determine if 405 x 5 and 425 x 3 represent any difference in strength development with the existing programming. Some qualitative feedback could be very useful in the short term to manage programming decisions, e.g. how to manipulate stress application to drive the desired adaptation as efficiently as possible without compromising long term development.

In my view, adding weight to the bar weekly (or at some other interval) is the default recommendation provided the effort level is not substantially changed from what we suspect best drives progress. I assume-perhaps at my peril- that the effort exerted per set is correlated with the intensity level, i.e. how heavy it is.

We are trying to impart both the correct amount and correct type of stress in order to produce the desired adaptation. I do not think that more stress is always better in this paradigm, e.g. heavier isn't always better, even if it's harder". Rather, better stress is better. In this paradigm, regularly exposing a lifter to very heavy sets in the 83-90% range reps >1 seem to be more of a test or display of strength rather and tend to contribute significantly to strength development considering the training cost, e.g. performing a 5RM probably doesn't contribute much to strength development outside of making you better at a 5RM. I would consider these the real junk reps, where significantly more stress must be dealt given the realized adaptation. Can it work? Sure, but I think there are better options from a cost/benefit analysis.

I'm not really clear on how the two are distinctly different, since I see both of us as having very similar goals and means to helping our clients achieve those goals. I'm trying to clarify in my own mind what this distinction is.
So based on this last post of Jordan's and your response, is the main contention here his reference here to a system like RPE, or a system of feedback to manage programming, or does his whole post represent a different approach in your mind?

[Mark Rippetoe]

But it's really not.

I'm not really clear on how the two are distinctly different, since I see both of us as having very similar goals and means to helping our clients achieve those goals. I'm trying to clarify in my own mind what this distinction is.
So based on this last post of Jordan's and your response, is the main contention here his reference here to a system like RPE, or a system of feedback to manage programming, or does his whole post represent a different approach in your mind?

Let me clarify, since this doesn't seem to be clear to several people: For a novice who has reached the end of the LP, our approach is:

For example, a 35-year-old Novice finishes up a productive squat LP at 375 x 5 x 3 – he’s tried 380 x 5 x 3 and missed some reps on his last 2 sets after a previous reset. He should back off to 355 x 5 x 5 for his first squat workout using the 4-Day Split, an excellent programming choice for a guy in this situation.

In contrast, your Bridge seems to be (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) an 8-week plan that features an increase in exercise complexity, a much bigger reduction in work set loads, and no new PRs for sets of 5. Clearly, these two approaches are distinctly different. Our approach changes the overload event to a week, but the 5s, the exercises, and the emphasis on PRs is the same. Your Bridge program uses 2 4-week cycles, something not encountered in SS programming for a couple more years. In addition, your program relies on the subjective assessment of the difficulty of the work and even the warmups as the prescriptor. SSOC does not use "RPE" in lieu of assigning loads. I explained, quite eloquently I believe, in the article why this is impractical and unrealistic for trainees with 6 months experience. To be clear: I don't think you should do the Bridge. I think you should do it our way. I hope this is clear.

I am puzzled by your insistence that the two approaches are not distinctly different, since they clearly are. Jordan has told me this several times. One is not the other. A is not B. The programming and logic behind the approaches are different. I have read Jordan's post above several times, like he has our article, and I must admit that I don't understand his point. He's quite a bit younger and brighter than I am, so I'll assume he's right, but he seems reluctant to make a definitive statement. I've attempted as best I can to explain our position in the article. I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that the Fans understand that ours are two different and distinct programming choices, just like they understand the differences between SS and 5/3/1, Poloquin, Escalating Density, CrossFit, and the ACSM. Your way and our way are different, and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.


Our good friend and tireless supporter Elephant illustrates why this is important:

In light of these distinctly different approaches, would you please clarify the skills needed to be a SSC? Clearly someone must be able to coach form according to the model and understand related mechanics.

Specifically, in this context, is any programming knowledge required beyond a general understanding of SRA and the ability to run a NLP?

I can assure you that everybody who sits for the exam has demonstrated an understanding of the SS model of post-Novice programming. However, once all professionals obtain a credential, they are obviously free to pursue their practice as they see fit. The marketplace of ideas sorts things out quite adequately, as long as the State does not become involved. The market may decide that these distinctions do not matter, or it may not. We'll see.

So, this is what happens when people split away from a parent corporation to form a new Brand. We wish the best of luck to Barbell Medicine, and they're still our friends. Visit them here: Barbell Medicine

[Leah Lutz]

Thank you, Rip. Your post clarifies some things that I found implied in the article, but I was not sure if I should assume to be true. Now I don't have to assume what some words or phrases in the article might have been referring to. That is helpful for me.

My original post here was in direct response to this post of Jordan's above that I was referencing, not really all of the programming ideas. I do realize that from a broader perspective we have some programming differences. I also know that BBM and SS both want to effectively and successfully work with each of our clients to help them be strong, healthy, and confident in their training.

[Morganism]

Personally I feel very blessed to be a "baby"at gaining strength at a time where I have such great people who freely give of their time and expertise on training and programming. This includes the folks here and at barbell medicine. I mentioned both in my recent testimonial. I like to think that we, your consumers and customers are intelligent enough to make our own decisions on what makes the most sense to us personally. Furthermore I will again say that anyone who is engaging in an intelligent method of training based on SRA is exceptional. If I look around the building I work in and compare myself to the general public this is underlined most strikingly.
I would also encourage advanced novices to do whatever program is going to keep them engaged in lifting heavy things. Some of us simply need additional variety and novelty. Some, like myself are old, busy and half brain dead from working too much and sleeping too little and crave simplicity. Getting my ass out of bed at 5:30am to go fix rich people's toys for 10 or 11 hours feels like an rpe 9.5 on a Monday morning, but it keeps me in bumper plates.
Having met and interacted with a number of SSC's, guess what, they are all slightly different in coaching styles and subtle details. However as I said previously I also have observed that as far as I can tell intelligence and compassion are virtues held far above strength in all of them.
I know I appreciate it.
I hope this isn't seen as some kind of rift or problem by others, I think it is admirable all of this thought and passion goes into our programming and we get to reap the benefits.

Okay, now after the divorce and subsequent custody battle I want to spend the weekends with Rip, he lets me eat whatever I want!

[Matt Reynolds]

I’d like to clarify a few things about SSOC...

SSOC is dedicated first and foremost to helping our clients get stronger and healthier. We have been blessed to work with 1100 clients over the past 14 months – the vast majority of whom are wonderful, conscientious, and totally normal people. We have some incredibly strong competitive lifters as well, and absolutely love coaching them and pushing them to succeed on the platform, but the reality is that our primary demographic is middle-aged gen pop.

As such, we have chosen to take a Minimum Effective Dose method of programming for the vast majority of our clients. Our official stance is that in the beginning, everyone does Novice Linear Progression, where the volume and frequency remain the same, and the intensity increases every session (I don’t believe this is a point of contention with anyone here).

From there, it appears that maybe our approach is a bit different from some others. We continue to make single minimum-effective-dose changes so that we can more-easily quantify the effect the change has on the lifter’s training. There are many things that could be changed; micro-loading, increase or decrease in intensity, increase or decrease in volume, increase or decrease in frequency, increase or decrease in exercise selection, descriptive vs. prescriptive RPE, etc. For our purposes, we’ve found that changing only ONE VARIABLE at a time works incredibly well AND gives us better data, because when something works (or doesn’t) we know the single variable that was changed.

Some other coaches (whom I respect) choose to change multiple variables all at once, moving from SS Novice LP (immediately) to longer-term programming that varies/changes the volume, intensity, frequency, exercise selection, and the addition of RPE all at once. And very simply, it appears to work just fine for many of their clients.

For us, at SSOC however, we choose the simpler Minimum Effective Dose route, because that route gives us clear data on which variables work (and which ones don’t), because knowing what works allows us to make better progress for longer, with less wasted time in the gym….and because we’d like our clients to make progress for a lifetime. We don’t have to be in a hurry, and yet, we believe our clients still make progress as fast as (we currently know is) possible.

Furthermore, I’m troubled by the public nature of this dispute. I believe this is a PR nightmare for everyone involved, SSOC included. I’ve pushed for months for a handful of us to get together in a private room (with bourbon, of course), talk through our differences, and then either kill each other (joke) or change the world. Extremely positive outcomes can occur when smart people can sit down (again, with whiskey), have an open discussion, hash stuff out, brainstorm, and them come to some important conclusions. And if we all meet, drink, talk, and decide to part ways (which I don’t think will happen), then at least it can be done amicably and professionally. I believe that a public internet forum is the worst possible venue for this to occur.

We can do this in a better way. I would implore Rip, Jordan, and the others involved to take this offline and find a way to discuss this in-person, privately, and respectfully.

[Risifrutti]

Furthermore, I’m troubled by the public nature of this dispute. I believe this is a PR nightmare for everyone involved, SSOC included. I’ve pushed for months for a handful of us to get together in a private room (with bourbon, of course), talk through our differences, and then either kill each other (joke) or change the world. Extremely positive outcomes can occur when smart people can sit down (again, with whiskey), have an open discussion, hash stuff out, brainstorm, and them come to some important conclusions. And if we all meet, drink, talk, and decide to part ways (which I don’t think will happen), then at least it can be done amicably and professionally. I believe that a public internet forum is the worst possible venue for this to occur.

We can do this in a better way. I would implore Rip, Jordan, and the others involved to take this offline and find a way to discuss this in-person, privately, and respectfully.

Personally, I think it is a testament of strength and integrity of the wider organisation and the individuals involved that this type of discussion can be had in such an open and civilised manner. It would have been disappointing if e.g. Jordan had not responded or if the article had been written differently to account for differing views.

Everyone knows there are differences with regards to the approach to intermediate programming and pretending otherwise would have been more of a PR nightmare.

Thanks for another informative and well written article. And thanks to Jordan for chiming in and making it even more interesting.