starting strength gym
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Does muscle hypertrophy contribute to strength gains?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    633

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Yonason Herschlag View Post
    After five years of progression on the SS program, it’s extremely hard to make any further progress in strength gains. What’s even more frustrating is that one has to constantly work extremely hard just to maintain one’s strength.

    I am not qualified to give advice on this subject, but perhaps sharing what has helped my sanity against these frustrations can help some others in similar situations.
    For me, seeing daily progress in something gives me emotional satisfaction.

    I can easily progress in aerobic ability, as I’m in poor shape in that arena. I can also make some progress in physical appearance by doing some hypertrophy programming and body building protocols such as focusing more on inclined bench, and/or isolation exercises for biceps or certain areas of deltoids that appear underdeveloped. I’m thinking about taking up Tai-chi and perhaps get some boxing lessons. At 55 years old, my blood pressure has gotten a little out of hand, so focusing on aerobics, flexibility (stretching) would probably benefit my heart-health. I also had some tendinitis issues in my pecs that held back my bench, and I’ve found that high volume work on rotator cuffs has been beneficial for this.

    Long story short, all this alternative physical activity is shoring up my physical weaknesses (a chain is as strong as its weakest link) and benefiting my overall health, while the lapse from the SS protocol has resulted in some losses in power-lifting strength. I’ve managed to minimize losses by maintaining a power-lifting protocol once a week, and I plan to cycle back into SS on and off in the future.

    My main point is that by getting out of the tunnel vision of ONLY SS programming, for me personally, I see incorporating hypertrophy protocols with a broader array of programming will benefit my mind and health and in the long run (10-20 years from now) I feel that I will be able to lift heavier than would I focus my entire life exclusively on power-lifting.
    Did you do 3 sets of 5 classic SS for 5 years? Or did you mean programming that sorta falls under the SS umbrella, like HLM, Texas Method... etc.?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    La Jolla California
    Posts
    2,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brodie Butland View Post
    Sure...Exercise Science as a whole is shit-tastic. You won’t hear an argument against that from me. But saying the field is generally shitty is different from saying that if a study goes against our preconceived notions, we should automatically reject it without looking at it (and conversely, we shouldn’t automatically laud a study that conforms to our preconceived notions without looking at it either). That approach is every bit as flawed as its opposite argument-from-authority fallacy.

    As the Starting Strength position statement said, we believe in Science, not Scientism. Although implicit and not expressly stated, we also don’t believe in Anti-Scientism either for the same reasons. The proper approach to rejecting a study shouldn’t be “if I disagree with it, or my elders said it’s bullshit, then I disregard it.” The proper approach is to examine the specifics of the study, look at the methodology and results, and determine its limitations. It may very well be GIGO. Or it may be largely GIGO but there is an interesting tidbit that seems supported. Or the method and data may be sound but it shows a different conclusion than the author made. Or it may be pretty well done overall with well-reasoned conclusions, but there are limitations to the study that should qualify our discussion.

    So as I said, I don’t have a problem with recognizing that Exercise Science as a whole is very poorly done. But that doesn’t justify (or excuse) intellectual solipsism.
    Shittastic also describes those areas of science such as the social sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, and biology [penguins are gay too, bigot! therefore its natural and lots of women are born with two penises and what about hermaphrodites, bigot! Love wins!] to name a few), which have co-opted the use of Science to promote agendas, which we all know are horseshit. Its not just exercise science.

    Rip just did a whole podcast on this, yet the political bodies who will use conclusions from Science to justify their conclusions will still claim its okay for men to punch women in the face and cave in their orbital socket, so long as he "identifies" as a woman. Shittastic.

    Moreover, our journalist and media overlords will use "studies" and "research" and "doctors" and "analyses" and report to the gullible Shittastic public certain "findings" and "conclusions" that will forever frame the debate and educate their minds that Science(!) supports certain viewpoints while denying others. Then these fuckwits get to vote on who our Supreme Leaders shall be.

    No, counselor. With a few exceptions such as chemistry, physics and mathematics (although these institutions are also under attack as being white, privileged male and exclusionary dontchaknow), its all Shittastic. When we know something - in our heart of hearts, and our gut of guts - like men shouldn't compete against women in sports, for example - all the studies and PhD and scientists and (esp) lawyers and their lawyering don't change our minds. We might shut up and slink off, but we dont forget. And we still know the truth. Is the world round or flat? Is Pluto a planet or a star? I don't know, let's let better minds than ours investigate and publish their findings. But when it comes to common sense shit, like whether bigger muscles are stronger muscles, ignore the science.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Beitar Illit, Israel
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavyiron8 View Post
    Did you do 3 sets of 5 classic SS for 5 years? Or did you mean programming that sorta falls under the SS umbrella, like HLM, Texas Method... etc.?
    I just looked back at my log. I only began keeping a log in December 2017 up until September 2018 (even though I began working out in mid 2013). I thought I was doing something like the Texas method by 2017. I was certainly varying the intensity of my workouts. I was also giving more time for recovery, sometimes only working out twice a week, or alternating heavy squatting with heavy DL. But as I read through my log it seems some what of an embarrassment. In mid 2018 I was traveling for 2.5 months, and I only got to a gym once a week where I lifted heavy on all three main lifts plus standing rows and standing presses and curls; it was an interesting change where I had a full week for recovery, and one all-out insane workout a week. I managed to maintain leg and back strength while traveling, but pressing once a week lead to a bit of a regression.

    I certainly would have benefited from personal coaching. But at my age, there's a lot of go-with-the-flow. If a joint gets cranky mid-workout I make an adjustment. If I'm short on time or energy, that will also have an effect. In April 2017 I was hit by a bus, and after giving myself a few weeks of light lifting I got back to heavy lifting with less frequency, and I found that the added recovery time helped me reach new PRs. By the end of 2018 it was discovered that the bus effected my head, giving me slight double vision, and reduced growth hormone. The weaker concentration ability and memory was obvious right after the collision, but I just sort of ignored it hoping it would disappear. The neurologist that determined that the collision caused a head trauma (there were no external head injuries at the time of the collision) recommended I take Ritalin to improve my concentration. So I've been on that since the beginning of 2019, and that has enabled me to get more than double my work done (writing the Old-Testament on parchment), but it's been a real drag on my ability to work out. Excuses, excuses, excuses... for not doing the program.

    Bottom line in response to your question: I was definitely not doing classic SS 3X5 for five years. I would like to imagine that what I was doing was sort of under the SS umbrella, but I'm not brave enough to submit my log to find out the reality. Let's just say I've been under the bar for five years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Y View Post
    Yonason, I would highly recommend against taking up tai chi. If you think about it for a second, long periods of time doing nearly isometric movement at low weight is not good for your joints. Imagine sticking your arms in front of you and slowly turning your palms over for ten minutes and this will be pretty obvious. Modern slow tai-chi has emerged as a form of exercise less because of its effectiveness than because certain people have an interest in promoting it. Boxing is less of an issue, although some boxing trainers have very strange beliefs about exercise..
    You will have to elaborate on why you think Tai-chi would harm the joints; that doesn't make any sense to me.
    As I said, since a chain is as strong as its weakest links, I want to focus on shoring up where I'm weak. Interestingly, I can squat double what some skinny kids can, while they can out-lift me on knee-extensions. So I'm convinced that my quads are relatively weak compared to my glutes, hamstrings, and adductors. If you look at many Tai-chi guys you will notice that they look like skinny weaklings except for their quads. For me, I found that Tai-chi strengthens my quads - and obviously without compressing the spine. Tai-chi also trains explosive movement in which the bulk of the power comes from the quads and the core muscles that twist the torso. In that sense there is a great similarity to boxing in which most of the power of the punch comes from the quads and twisting the torso explosively. Personally I get tired when standing for long periods. Think about this: who would win a contest for standing the longest? A power-lifter, wrestler, boxer, swimmer, or Tai-chi-dude. And it's not just training for endurance, but the movements align and stretch the spinal column, improving posture. It's good for reducing stress and lowering blood-pressure. When I have the chance to get lessons again, I will develop my own style of incorporating it into my life based on my personal goals.

    Regarding the boxing, had I not had the head injury from the bus, I'd have no reservations of getting punched in the head. But in the given situation I will have to focus more on training and less on sparring in the ring. But just preparing to get in the ring will force me and motivate me to get in much better condition, which I am pretty sure will help reduce my blood pressure.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yonason Herschlag View Post
    Bottom line in response to your question: I was definitely not doing classic SS 3X5 for five years. I would like to imagine that what I was doing was sort of under the SS umbrella, but I'm not brave enough to submit my log to find out the reality. Let's just say I've been under the bar for five years.
    Imagine that.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yonason Herschlag View Post

    I would like to imagine that what I was doing was sort of under the SS umbrella. Let's just say I've been under the bar for five years.
    Doesn't really sound like it.

  6. #26
    Brodie Butland is offline Starting Strength Coach
    Consigliere
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    3,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatButWeak View Post
    Shittastic also describes those areas of science such as the social sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, and biology [penguins are gay too, bigot! therefore its natural and lots of women are born with two penises and what about hermaphrodites, bigot! Love wins!] to name a few), which have co-opted the use of Science to promote agendas, which we all know are horseshit. Its not just exercise science.
    As Christopher Hitchens once said to Sean Hannity, you give me the distinct impression of having never read anything that contradicts your views. And I'm sure the physicians on this forum would be interested to hear you explain why biology is a "social science" that is "shittastic" and "horseshit."

    Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in animals? Are you saying that there are not hermaphroditic animals (aside from those that are always hermaphroditic like earthworms or those that can change their sex)? If so, I regret to inform you that you are either exceptionally naïve, or a rift opened up between parallel universes and you somehow ended up here. And no, these observations aren't some offshoot of the social justice movement. Robert Ardrey (referred to as the "lyric poet of evolution"...he was originally a playwright during the Great Depression and became an amateur scientist in his later years) wrote about homosexuality in animals in the 1950s, well before the Stonewall Riots or the concept of a gay identity. Ardrey, in turn, referenced observations that went back to the early 1900s.

    Really, before dissing biology and biological anthropology, you should try reading some of it. It's really amazing, and helps one appreciate even more just how damn complex life actually is. Ardrey's The Territorial Imperative and The Social Contract are two of the most fascinating non-fiction books I've read. Stephen Jay Gould is phenomenal as well, not to mention controversial...his theory of punctuated equilibrium is still hotly debated in the scientific community today, even though he's been dead for over a decade. But I'm sure you already knew all of that.


    Rip just did a whole podcast on this, yet the political bodies who will use conclusions from Science to justify their conclusions will still claim its okay for men to punch women in the face and cave in their orbital socket, so long as he "identifies" as a woman. Shittastic.
    Actual example of someone with real political influence saying it's okay for men to punch women in the face as long as he "identifies" as a woman? And don't cheat by using Google...if you could assert this so forcefully, surely you have an example top-of-mind.


    Moreover, our journalist and media overlords will use "studies" and "research" and "doctors" and "analyses" and report to the gullible Shittastic public certain "findings" and "conclusions" that will forever frame the debate and educate their minds that Science(!) supports certain viewpoints while denying others. Then these fuckwits get to vote on who our Supreme Leaders shall be.
    This is a terrific reason to ridicule non-scientists who misrepresent studies, use the studies to prove more than they do, or use the studies beyond their intended reach (i.e., taking a claim about what we know, and trying to turn it into a political statement). It is a very poor reason to refuse to read studies solely because you don't like their conclusion.


    No, counselor. With a few exceptions such as chemistry, physics and mathematics (although these institutions are also under attack as being white, privileged male and exclusionary dontchaknow), its all Shittastic. When we know something - in our heart of hearts, and our gut of guts - like men shouldn't compete against women in sports, for example - all the studies and PhD and scientists and (esp) lawyers and their lawyering don't change our minds. We might shut up and slink off, but we dont forget. And we still know the truth. Is the world round or flat? Is Pluto a planet or a star? I don't know, let's let better minds than ours investigate and publish their findings. But when it comes to common sense shit, like whether bigger muscles are stronger muscles, ignore the science.
    Giving an example of "is Pluto a planet or a star?" doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your scientific literacy. But putting that aside, the rule you propose is logically circular and nihilist.

    Your position is that we should ignore any research or study that contradicts what we KNOW to be true (aside from the inexplicable carve-outs of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, which you seem to erroneously believe are more or less uncontroversial, settled areas of study). The obvious problem is that lots of people KNOW things that are wrong. Young earth creationists KNOW that the universe and the earth are 6,000 years old...when you confront them with physics-, chemistry-, and geology-based evidence to the contrary, they'll simply say that they KNOW it's wrong because the KNOW in their heart of hearts, gut of guts that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. Flat Eartherism is a real thing, and same deal there if you dare attack their favorite toy...they KNOW it's flat, whether you roll out those Round-Earth-Lobby-Bought-And-Paid-For-Studies or not. Many people KNOW that the 70-cents-on-the-dollar wage gap is real--even though it isn't. I used to KNOW that concealed carry would lead to an increase in crime and that the death penalty has no deterrent effect...but then I looked at the actual data and the most credible analyses of the issues, and have changed my views on both. I gather you think that was a massive mistake on my part...I would have been better served to just remain confident in my belief silo rather than read something that might challenge my views.

    And in an especial bout of irony, your very example doesn't involve your watered-down Cartesian clearness and distinctness principle. If you've been following any of the conversation, you would know that Rip's opposition to MTF competing against congenital females has nothing to do with his personal views of transsexualism or any desire to "screw the liberals," and it wasn't simply pulled out of thin air or out of his heart-of-hearts-gut-of-guts. When I've spoke to Rip on several occasions about this topic (including as part of drafting the USSF rules), political thought never came up. Rather, Rip bases his views on the observed systemic effects of testosterone beginning in utero--i.e., biology, the very science that you suggest we discard entirely.

    Look, if you want to preach know-nothingism, quarantine yourself in a safe space so you don't have to confront the fact that you just might be wrong about something, and take pot shots at my profession (seriously, where the hell did that come from?), then have at it. But don't do it in the name of Starting Strength, which at its core is very much a believer in science (and anti-Scientism in all its forms), and very much against simply relying on subjective certainties.

    The "Corporate Culture" of The Aasgaard Company | Mark Rippetoe

    We understand and follow the scientific method as the best way to understand Nature and physical existence, and we loathe “scientism” as a pale mockery thereof. We value reason and logic over feeling and emotion, since quantification and verification are preferable to subjective assertion and whim.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    La Jolla California
    Posts
    2,285

    Default

    Butland:

    You wrote: "Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in animals? Are you saying that there are not hermaphroditic animals (aside from those that are always hermaphroditic like earthworms or those that can change their sex)?"

    My response: No, thats not what I'm saying. I thought it was a well known argument of those who push a pro-gay, pro-trans agenda to justify their position as one that is "natural"ergo good and necessary. I suppose youre not familiar with that particular argument, which gives me, "the distinct impression of [your[ having never read anything that contradicts your views." (Buttland, 2019).

    You also wrote: "Really, before dissing biology and biological anthropology, you should try reading some of it...Ardrey...Stephen Jay Gould..." Not my point, to "diss" these areas of study, rather I was pointing out how bad people have co-opted them for their nefarious purposes. Also, I'm unfamiliar with Ardrey but I've read a lot of Stephen Jay Gould, about 20-25 years ago. I remember Gould as being fun and accessible, but 25 years hence, his lessons haven't stuck around in me bean.

    You then wrote, "Actual example of someone with real political influence saying it's okay for men to punch women in the face as long as he "identifies" as a woman? And don't cheat by using Google...if you could assert this so forcefully, surely you have an example top-of-mind." Without using the Googles, I recall the Fallon Fox debacle where a sports league, such as the NFL, MLB, NBA, UFC are (would you agree in the wake of the NFL's recent political/free speech controversy and the congressional MLB steroid hearings of the 1990s and the WNBA's tireless promotion of title IX derived sports and where ESPN and other sports/news outlets debate these topics ad nauseaum before an audience of millions that professional sports leagues have political influcence?) AND (presumably) some state's sports commision(er) - almost certainly a political appointee if not elected official - sanctioned a professional MMA fight where a male-to-female transgender beat the holy shit out of a woman and fractured her skull and caved in her orbital socket. Again, the fact that you are oblivious to this gives me, "the distinct impression of [your] having never read anything that contradicts your views." (Buttland, 2019).

    Pluto was recently (shit, maybe it was 5 years ago now) downgraded to star status from planet status. Having never been there and otherwise having no direct knowledge of anything about Pluto, stars and planets, I agree to leave it to experts to make hard conclusions. Same with whether the Earth is flat; I have no fucking idea, so I leave it to others. Hence those examples which, again, I thought were examples and debates that were well known to most everybody (citation omitted for redundancy)

    My entire and sole point in this otherwise tired and pointless piece of internet masturbation is to suggest that Science can be used and manipulated in very bad ways by very bad people. Where there is a subject with which you are intimately familiar (Having been a man my whole life, and spent a lot of time around men, I know and understand men. And I was born to, raised by, lived alongside, fucked many, married a, and am father to women, so I feel like I know that sex pretty well, also. Therefore, I dont really care what the professional bullshitters of Science(!) say, I dont think men and women should compete against each other in sports, and for all practical purposes most/many male to female transgenders are still men or retain the physical attributes having been born men. Same thing goes for dumb studies that tell us bigger muscles arent stronger muscles.

    Science, especially science as reported is fraught with error and bias. Therefore, whenever a study tells us something that appears directly contradictory to what we as sensate, intelligent, experienced people know to be true (dogs bark; men are stronger than women; bigger muscles are stronger muscles etc) we are right to question it, read it then reject it. When it comes to shit we have no ideas about due to a complete lack of direct knowledge or experince (again, back to Pluto) let's leave it to the experts.

    Now go ahead and point out how basenjis dont bark, Maryana Gasparyan just beat the men's all time squat record and patholgical cardiac hypertrophy is actually a weaker muscle. Go ahead. You'll just be proving my point, which is that pedants will wield Science(!) to prove irrelevant and (mostly) incorrect shit.
    Last edited by Mark Rippetoe; 05-03-2019 at 11:57 AM. Reason: spelling

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Murphysboro, IL
    Posts
    726

    Default

    I am at a complete loss to fathom how Tai Chi can possibly contribute jack-all to explosiveness given the speed at which practitioners are taught to do it. I know I come in for a fair amount of less than good natured joshing about my adherence to what some here consider Eastern ooga-booga, but this is too much for me to even give silent respect for by not commenting on the utter absurdity of the premise.

    It is pretty good at teaching you coordinated foot and hand movements together, and I will grant you, that once you can get that act together, you can perform other techniques far more smoothly and faster without falling over your own feet or tying yourself in a Chinese knot. But explosiveness? Come on.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatButWeak View Post
    Pluto was recently (shit, maybe it was 5 years ago now) downgraded to star status from planet status. Having never been there and otherwise having no direct knowledge of anything about Pluto, stars and planets, I agree to leave it to experts to make hard conclusions.
    I'm no astrophysicist but even I know that a a star ranks higher in the astro-spacial scale than a planet. Pluto's status was changed from a being the 9th planet of our solar system to just being a proto-planet due to its size and its orbital path.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    318

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Yonason Herschlag View Post
    You will have to elaborate on why you think Tai-chi would harm the joints; that doesn't make any sense to me.
    Sorry for the delay; I started to answer this, but I wasn’t satisfied with what I wrote and wanted to get it right, so I met my martial arts expert friend for lunch today, who is the one who first told me tai chi was bad for the joints, and asked him for more details.

    Early tai chi stances were very different from modern ones; it was a fast martial art with an emphasis on keeping a center of balance and grappling and throwing. It’s not so easy to see if you’re not looking for it, but old photographs of tai chi practitioners show stances that are on balance and with weight evenly distributed. However, a Henanese practitioner during the late Qing Dynasty made the art slower so the children of Chinese nobility in the capital could practice it without getting injured. Since then, the movements have gradually changed to be less practical and more expressive. The example he gave is that modern tai chi often places a person’s body weight on one knee and then rotates the rear leg, which if not done just so will put a lot of stress on the knee joint. The back leg often rotates, which causes the knee to twist under pressure, a damaging motion to the joint that is only made worse by its low speed and long duration. Of course, this is a bigger problem as people get older, which is concerning when we consider to whom tai chi is promoted and for what reasons. Also, since tai chi is not aimed at a performance outcome, it does not have a large body of physics analysis the way weightlifting and strength training do, which means these problems aren’t being examined thoroughly and won’t be fixed any time soon.

    You seem to be coming at this with a lot of priors about conditioning transfer, performance transfer, stretching the spine, training explosive movements, working on weak points, and the core. I’d strongly encourage reading the articles on this site, which have a lot to say about these topics. The recent one about stretching and others about government-sponsored exercise advice, the core, physical potential, strength and conditioning, sports-specific training, and athletic performance all have a lot of good information.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •