Personal trainer horrified by SS

[Mark Rippetoe]

And the Post of the Week Award goes to blowdpanis for that excellent little essay. The beer is in the mail.

[mark]

And the Post of the Week Award goes to blowdpanis for that excellent little essay. The beer is in the mail.

Yes, very well said. I was on my way to say something similar, but that said everything I was going to say, and probably a lot more intelligently put together.


To the OP, why do you think you have to do the assessment? It's not a requirement, I'm sure. It's simply an avenue for them to try to sell you training. If it's because you want to shoot the guy down and convince him he's the idiot we know he is, then fine. Have fun. But having dealt with idiot trainers in commercial gyms for a few years now, you're never going to convince him of anything. You're just going to be wasting time you could be squatting.

[Harry Munro]

When dealing with such small muscle mass gains, the pure strength workout is just nonsense to undertake if fat loss is the primary goal. I'd actually advocate fartlek and interval running/sprinting combined with some compound weight training on top, but certainly not a progressive strength program.

Calories burned during exercise is mildly relevant, it's what you burn during the rest day that counts. Now of course having more muscle mass helps burn fat but (most) girls I know are not interested in building the sort of muscle that would have a noticeable affect on weight loss.

If we're talking about circuits, i'm referring to the kind you see rugby players doing. Bodyweight exercises, sprints, medicine ball training, ladders, box jumps etc. Try that for an hour I think you'll find you'll be sweating just a little more than doing a strength workout.

Primarily though, as already stated by a few of your posts, it boils down to diet sadly.

[tscw1]

last night a 'personal trainer' came over to me as I finished my 2nd work set of squats and told me I'm leaning too far forward. He then showed me 'how it should be done' with a perfectly upright back with a perfect quater squat. (Imagine doing a squat on a Smith machine) Becasue then it hits your quadriceps, then he proceeds to show me where the quadriceps are. He then told me he was available for bookings if I wanted...

Now I was in a dilemma, do I argue with him, or do I nod at him then completely ignore him? both ways I'd look like a prick. I took the last option because I was dumbfounded he would come over and tell me to do the squat completely wrong. Hopefully I'll be better prepared if there is a next time.

[Mark Rippetoe]

When dealing with such small muscle mass gains, the pure strength workout is just nonsense to undertake if fat loss is the primary goal.

Please explain what you mean by this.

[blowdpanis]

When dealing with such small muscle mass gains, the pure strength workout is just nonsense to undertake if fat loss is the primary goal. I'd actually advocate fartlek and interval running/sprinting combined with some compound weight training on top, but certainly not a progressive strength program.

Calories burned during exercise is mildly relevant, it's what you burn during the rest day that counts. Now of course having more muscle mass helps burn fat but (most) girls I know are not interested in building the sort of muscle that would have a noticeable affect on weight loss.

If we're talking about circuits, i'm referring to the kind you see rugby players doing. Bodyweight exercises, sprints, medicine ball training, ladders, box jumps etc. Try that for an hour I think you'll find you'll be sweating just a little more than doing a strength workout.

Primarily though, as already stated by a few of your posts, it boils down to diet sadly.

Here's a really simple question:

Which is more likely to conserve muscle mass when losing bodyfat, i.e. being in a calorie deficit?

* All of the stuff that isn't a "progressive strength program" above

* The "progressive strength program"

What you and clueless personal trainers everywhere (incidentally, are you a personal trainer?) seem to not "get" is that running around, feeling the burn, and getting your heart rate up, while entertaining and moderately useful for expending calories, isn't particularly awesome at building muscle. You'd probably even admit this.

Using a bit of common fucking sense, it should not be hard to realize that, being not particularly awesome at building muscle, it will not be particularly awesome at conserving lean mass on a diet, or comparatively less awesome than the basic, progressive resistance training.

I can try to take this to whatever level of nerdery you need to understand the point, but simplistically speaking, what would send a stronger signal to the body to conserve muscle - stuff which requires your muscles to generate higher levels of tension, or stuff which requires your muscles to generate comparatively lower levels of tension?

If you are confused, perhaps examining the bodies of people who focus on low tension, longer duration activity (endurance athletes) compared to people who focus on high tension, shorter duration activity (weight lifters in general) will be helpful. This is not rocket science.

Note that if any part of your reply talks about girls not needing to get bulky, Jesus will weep.

[Dan F.]

Yes, blowdpanis wrote an excellent compendium in that post! With him (or her) permission I'll translate it in italian and make it read to all ladies I know that complains of their weight and that last "diet" they did was completely unsuccessful.

@ H. Munro
Yes, intervals and sprinting and fartlek are all good to lose fat but if you have to train those overweighted ladies you think they can do some sprinting at first?? In the average gym they are put on a cyclette for 20 mins and then on a machine to do some "gluteus" and "internal thigh" work. One month after they change gym and go to a "pilates" one, one month after they move to another kind of new fashion way do lose fat -- that, sadly, they never lose (99% of them).

I think their main problem is that they have not the strength to do something good and quick with their bodyweight because they are sedentary (weak muscles) and overweight at the same time: so strenght training (SS in particular) is the first thing they have to do and not only because muscle burns more calories but because with more strenght they can do a real effort and workout on a cyclette, a bike, a track, a road, a rower ecc. if they like those activities more than move a barbell. But, at first, they have to move a barbell. Strictly IMHO.

[Kiknskreem]

When dealing with such small muscle mass gains, the pure strength workout is just nonsense to undertake if fat loss is the primary goal. I'd actually advocate fartlek and interval running/sprinting combined with some compound weight training on top, but certainly not a progressive strength program..

Two questions.... one, what is the value of weight training if the program is not progressive... and two, how did you arrive at the conclusion that SS is a "pure strength" program?

[twotubman]

Now I was in a dilemma, do I argue with him, or do I nod at him then completely ignore him? both ways I'd look like a prick.

Well, I don't think you would look like a prick, personally.

But I can understand where you're coming from. I was raised to be polite and accomodating. The problem with that approach is that we don't live in a polite and accomodating world. Contemporary society values selfishness and "in-your-face" self-promotion at the expense of others.

So, once in while you're going to find yourself in awkward situations where, in order to deflect the rudeness of other people, you have to be a little bit rude yourself.

That's life.

[spur]

I actually introduced my 27 year personal trainer (who did not know how to squat correctly) to SSBBT. Now he swears by Rips program as his squat progressed to 237 pounds 3x5 at a body weight of 169 pounds in just 8 months. He says his sprints have also improved and he has never felt so strong in all the years of mucking around the gym. Clearly he is one the smarter trainers.