starting strength gym
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 71

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Reynolds View Post
    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.
    But since it's the only venue in which all parties will come to the discussion, after all these months, here's the discussion. I think it's best this way, since everybody relevant to the discussion gets to talk without interruption, and the market can evaluate the arguments. Those who want a multi-factorial backoff after the LP can get one. Those who feel like continuing with weekly PRs can get them. It has been correctly pointed out elsewhere that programming takes a back seat to correct technique and persistence anyway, so it's just not that big a deal. People who want to add 5 pounds to Friday's set of 3 can do so. People who want to decide what to do based on their warmups today can do so. Everybody is free to do that which they choose. But these approaches are not the same, so let's stop pretending they are, like we apparently have been for far longer than I knew about until this morning. And I see no reason to discuss this further on this board.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risifrutti View Post
    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.
    I totally agree. The average Joe, like myself, on the other side of the bar who purchases these programs and are potential clients should hear this discussion. Taking the conversation to some backroom (with whiskey) to concoct some PR cover up would be disingenuous.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    That's why we've done it here.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    765

    Default

    I guess it’s unclear whether further discussion is going to be welcomed or not, but I thought I’d post some more definitive thoughts in an attempt to clarify a few things.

    1) The "running it out" debate has been beaten to death. We avoid lowering training volume solely to facilitate continued load increases. While this approach maintains intensity, it detrains the work capacity that will be necessary to impart sufficient stress as an intermediate and beyond, and requires a substantial reset (and hence wasted time) to re-train this capacity in the intermediate phase.

    2) For someone immediately coming off the LP, we all agree that stress needs to increase - but we tend to view that process differently. Perhaps the key points: for a novice, there is no significant difference between low volume and higher volume training for strength or hypertrophy outcomes, BUT the evidence is fairly clear that there is a dose-response effect for trained individuals - in other words: a higher dose gets more results. For this reason, we view the “minimum effective dose” as getting the “minimum possible results” - ultimately compromising the development of necessary long-term adaptations (like hypertrophy, as mentioned in the article) in exchange for grinding new all-out 5RMs as often as possible *right NOW*. Once the force production capacity of existing muscle mass is optimized via exposure to heavy loading at low volumes, the trainee will stall and require a reset to re-start the process.

    3) I care FAR less about someone immediately using RPEs or immediately introducing more exercise variation, and think a HLM setup is completely reasonable, even without variants, as long as the volume/intensity dosing is appropriate. This means that while exposure to heavy loads is absolutely necessary, most training stress is accumulated in the 70-80% range, which is far more sustainable from a fatigue standpoint from my experience. I believe that even Andy Baker has echoed this sentiment elsewhere. Spending lots of time grinding in the 80-90% range is not sustainable and is excessively fatiguing (as anyone who has attempted this can attest to), therefore limiting the total amount of stress that can be handled by the trainee. This limits hypertrophy outcomes, which then limits ultimate strength potential in a post-novice trainee. We are also aware of no direct human evidence of significant “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” or “non-contractile hypertrophy” preferentially occurring in any particular intensity range compared to another, as has been suggested.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    183

    Default

    It's been awhile since I have seen a honest discussion of deeply held beliefs, with others that share different beliefs, be done so in such an open and civil way.

    Of all the stuff I have read, learned and listened to here (and within all the books), I have always been impressed with the thought, knowledge and wisdom shared.

    I've have never been impressed more than right now, having just read this entire thread.

    Gentlemen (and ladies), my deepest respects and admiration to you all.

  6. #66
    Brodie Butland is offline Starting Strength Coach
    Consigliere
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    3,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarinePMI View Post
    It's been awhile since I have seen a honest discussion of deeply held beliefs, with others that share different beliefs, be done so in such an open and civil way.

    Of all the stuff I have read, learned and listened to here (and within all the books), I have always been impressed with the thought, knowledge and wisdom shared.

    I've have never been impressed more than right now, having just read this entire thread.

    Gentlemen (and ladies), my deepest respects and admiration to you all.

    Completely agree. And it definitively shows that the oft-levied accusation that Starting Strength is a "cult" full of acolytes who just nod their heads is complete and total bullshit.

    Jordan and Rip clearly have different views of programming (which pre-dated this thread), and they've offered the reasoning behind their respective positions here. Yet amazingly, Jordan has not been banned, thrown out of the organization, or publicly pilloried by Rip. To the contrary, Rip complimented him (and Barbell Medicine generally), and even linked to their site, which in some sense is a competitor of SSOC. And even posted an article by Jordan (Into the Great Wide Open) that argues for a different intermediate methodology than Rip argues in his own joint article.

    This exchange illustrates what we in the organization have said all along: that in the Starting Strength organization, there is nothing wrong with disagreement, as long as you are able to provide a logical explanation and evidentiary support for your position. Starting Strength Coaches discuss this stuff all the time at seminars, at the SSCA meetings, and offline, and those ideas have been incorporated into articles, presentations, and videos on this site, the teaching method at Starting Strength Seminars, and in some cases into new editions of SS:BBT and Practical Programming.

    The reason why the typical Rip detractors and critics are subjected to ire and ridicule on this forum is because they generally don't present a logical, empirically supported position. They frequently rely on phenomenology, or misunderstandings of basic physiology and biomechanics, or misinterpretations (sometimes seemingly deliberate) of the actual positions taken in the books, or clearly flawed studies. And more often than not, said typical detractors don't understand what they're doing, and they simply chalk Rip's responses up to him being a stubborn asshole, rather than their own shortcomings. Which may be an accurate characterization, but not for the reason they're citing.

    Although somewhat braggadocio, I think it's also true: the amount of intellectual firepower at every SSCA conference is pretty stunning. Starting Strength Coaches include (just from my offhand recollection) physicians, college professors (in several different areas), engineers, gym and other business owners, nutritionists, physical therapists, accountants, and I hear tell that a lawyer even managed to sneak in when no one was watching closely. Claiming, as some do, that SSCs and many other equally-intelligent SS followers are simply being hoodwinked demeans the analytical abilities of thousands of people who are at the top of their game in their respective professions, and ironically demonstrates far more arrogance than they even accuse Rip of.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    192

    Default

    I just wanted to say, you hear the phrase "periodization" thrown around all the time with respect to lifting. But I never saw it explained as simply yet eloquently as the last few paragraphs of that article.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarinePMI View Post
    It's been awhile since I have seen a honest discussion of deeply held beliefs, with others that share different beliefs, be done so in such an open and civil way.

    Of all the stuff I have read, learned and listened to here (and within all the books), I have always been impressed with the thought, knowledge and wisdom shared.

    I've have never been impressed more than right now, having just read this entire thread.

    Gentlemen (and ladies), my deepest respects and admiration to you all.
    I second this. When was the last time 2 proven minds in the larger lifting community discussed this topic? To see Rip and Jordan discuss training methodology is a breathe of fresh air, and if anything, speaks to the difficulty in intermediate training.

    I do think one key point has been overlooked, and that is goals. I'm a 30 nothing individual who enjoys some variability in scheduling, programming, and intensity for lots of reasons. This doesn't mean I don't want to be stronger and don't want to put in hard work towards achieving it.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    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.
    Coach Jordan, what would be an approximate method to describe better stress? What would be the factors to consider and what would be the order of preference in manipulating them to drive optimal progress?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6,509

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    I'm replying to the whole thread at once, so even though I've pared down about half the things I was going to respond to, this might still get a bit long. Sorry?

    Disclaimer: I see good points from multiple perspectives here, but since this whole topic seems to rustle some jimmies, I will say now that such is not my intent. I'm just trying to learn and clarify some points of discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Decades of experience with this method with tens of thousands of lifters has demonstrated its effect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    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.
    While I absolutely don't discount the importance of experience, as it is the major area I'm lacking in, I do think this is a two-sided sword. Boris Sheiko probably has more coaching experience than anyone on this forum, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily right, despite having an enormous pool of data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    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. ... 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.
    ...
    Except...the old programs do work. ... 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... precisely because these programs have been used productively for decades, and many people have gotten strong, even brutally strong, using them.
    As I'm reading it, the idea is not that they don't work at all, just that there may be things that work better. After all, there are lots of other old programs that people have gotten brutally strong on that you probably wouldn't agree with. Franco Columbu, for example, was enormously strong, but I doubt you'd say “Train each body part twice a week, as hard and relentless as possible each time" sounds like a good idea, despite the program working for some people.

    I think we're all ultimately trying to improve our knowledge of programming. Most of the time this will be sticking to old ways of doing things that have been proven to work, but every once in a while useful innovation still happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    And they were invented by really strong new guys who aren't old guys, and who are totally jacked, so they must work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    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.
    I don't think you can entirely discount someone's personal success at training, yet neither do I agree that you can entirely discount someone's experiences and opinions just because they don't lift a certain amount. Overall, the people who understand what they're doing will make better progress, and thus end up as the better lifters, yet genetics et al still reign supreme.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonfla View Post
    What is the relation between relative and absolute time for the purposes of evaluating programming variables?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Unless you disagree with our analysis of the levels of training advancement... the time in question is the length of the overload event.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Hartigan View Post
    [Example with advanced lifter doing much less work in a month (his overload period) than either the novice or intermediate lifter]
    Ryan makes a valid point, and one that I think is ultimately the underlying question here: if a lifter needs to accumulate more work over his overload event rather than over a fixed unit of time, can an advanced lifter make progress by doing less overall work than an intermediate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Baker (KSC) View Post
    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".
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    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.
    I'll admit it: personally, I don't like RPE. I don't like it because I'm not good at it myself. Yet I don't think that takes away from its general usefulness. If you want an athlete to "just go lighter", but you don't have a coach there to tell him how much, and you don't want to assign a percentage, what's left? The lifter may not be exact with his RPE, but he wouldn't be exact with "kinda medium" either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    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.
    The sarcoplasmic hypertrophy thing bugs me, too. I don't have the specific chemistry/biology knowledge to dive into the specifics, but to ignore an entire range of effort levels/percentages based on that questionable hypothesis seems off. Maybe the science is more settled than I think, and it all says that there definitely is a meaningful difference between sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy, but if so, I haven't seen it and would love to be pointed in the right direction to find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Reynolds View Post
    Furthermore, I’m troubled by the public nature of this dispute. I believe this is a PR nightmare for everyone involved, SSOC included.
    How so? The only way I can see it being a negative is if one side and/or the other (if you want to split it into "sides") comes off as closed-minded and dismissive of the other side's insights. Otherwise, it's a chance to put the theories out there, see the evidence behind them, and maybe get some new perspective on how and why we train the way we do.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •