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.
That's why we've done it here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.