RUMINT reports indicate that he's leading the #did crowd on TikTok.
My question is about the claim that optimal strength training is optimal hypertrophy training; the context of this forum is irrelevant, as is how pragmatic one training methodology is over
the other. "Optimal" here refers to the most progress in regards to strength and muscle volume for strength training and hypertrophy training, respectively.
Your question arises out of a false interpretation of what I was saying, namely that I was suggesting that I knew of a better way in a precise sense. As I said, I was only interested in a discussion--why you've interpreted that as me outright rejecting what you claim and then demanding that I suggest something better is beyond me. But, fine here you go: heavy sets of 5 and when you're done, surf the dumbbell rack during curls. Now tell me why I'm wrong.
The only thing that we are considering is whether optimal training for strength is necessarily optimal for hypertrophy. Nothing you posted provides any sort of strong
evidence that optimal training for strength is also optimal for hypertrophy.
So? Do you think I'm unaware of that or something? This doesn't refute my point in the slightest. For the billionth time, the question is whether training optimally for strength
intersects perfectly with training optimally for hypertrophy; I am not claiming and have not claimed that the two are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps it may also be because you're unable to effectively think for yourself, as demonstrated above.
My old log on these forums more than corroborates it.
RUMINT reports indicate that he's leading the #did crowd on TikTok.
Depending on the level of training advancement of the trainee, optimal strength training is certainly the same thing as the optimal way to force hypertrophy. And since 90% of all trainees at any given time are in this demographic, those people are my primary audience. You can train the rest of them for me.
You quoted Andy without considering the two very important points of what you quoted. If you did, you'd understand that he essentially said in that quote, that until a certain point far along the curve of diminishing returns, the best way to train for size IS to train for strength. That is not something I am providing evidence for, that is something claimed by a quote that YOU are citing as evidence. If you want me to provide "evidence", all I can point to is my own experiences. Sets of 10 with short rests, trying to do shit I read in Arnold's book as a teenager did not accomplish much of anything for me. As almost a middle aged man, heavy sets of 5 has made me more muscular (and stronger) than I have ever been in my entire life. And I don't even do TRT(not that I look down on it, I've considered it for myself plenty as a somewhat low-T guy...more "evidence" for the effectiveness of low rep heavy work). And the only people who call me fat are people I've never met in person talking to me on the internet.
Let's elucidate here - definitions are important. Thank you for defining "optimal".
Can we assume that all parties agree that:
1) progress in strength = positive change in ability to exert force over an external resistance, as compared between start and finish of a period of time, for a particular trainee or group of trainees,
and
2) progress in hypertrophy = positive change in muscle volume, as compared between start and finish of a period of time, for a particular trainee or group of trainees?
If so, the question then becomes, the most progress for what trainees over what period of time?
The scope of the trainees (both demographically and in terms of training development) and the period of time over which the method is applied are both VERY important.
(For example, a trivial case: the example of the bro-coveted, sick muscle pump most definitely increases muscle size over an immediate period of time, and in that period whoops fives all hollow. That doesn't mean the same later on, though...)
You do understand that most people do not squat 500+ for sets of 5, right?
You say there is no evidence? You think Rip, and all the other people involved in Starting Strength for the past 17 years, have just been sitting here lickin their own balls and throwing out theories? Or maybe there are decades of experience with tens of thousands of people and an incredible amount of data being accumulated over time that makes them confident about their claims?
Once you get your squat to 500x5 or your deadlift to 600, Starting Strength's job is pretty much done. Go have fun and do whatever you please now that you got strong AND big.
The optimal way to get both of those adaptations for 95% of people has already been figured out.
So you might wanna rephrase your question and mention bodybuilders and aesthetics.
You seem more concerned with LOOKING bigger than actually being bigger and stronger at the same time.
Hey Rip, what happened to Chase's body when he went from a 500lbs squat to a 600lbs squat, and from a 600lbs deadlift to a 700lbs deadlift, or better yet from a 315lbs press to a 405lbs press? And how long did it take him? Would he be just as big AND strong by training for hypertrophy with high reps as well?
Again, your reading comprehension is lacking. I'll reproduce the quote here so there is no ambiguity
This does not say anything about the absolute optimality of heavy low rep training in regards to hypertrophy. It only says the resultant myofribrillar hypertrophy from this type of training decreases (or, at least, visually decreases) as the trainee becomes more advanced.The only problem with strictly focusing on heavy low rep training that leads to myofribrillar hypetrophy is that it isn’t very dramatic after a certain point in time.
I has been my suspicion that doing a novice LP in the style of SS is probably near-optimal in regards to hypertrophy. I have never suggested that was not the case, but you're only a novice for 3-8 months and (ideally) this is but a blip in someone's training history. With increasing progression, the specificity of training and adaptation increases and at some point it seems likely that optimality for hypertrophy and optimality for strength diverge.
If I get that SSC cert before you kick the bucket, deal.
Hey Coach Rip,
PPST has a chapter on advanced training. As an advanced trainer, I have a question if that’s ok -
Are there any circumstances under which you would EVER recommend to a young (25-35 ish) healthy advanced trainer to do more than 5’s to increase their strength after they are unable to hit any more PR’s using 5’s? (assuming they are doing all they can to eat sleep and recover properly)?
I have also had that suspicion.
It is unlikely.I have never suggested that was not the case, but you're only a novice for 3-8 months and (ideally) this is but a blip in someone's training history. With increasing progression, the specificity of training and adaptation increases and at some point it seems likely that optimality for hypertrophy and optimality for strength diverge.
Read the chapter on Intermediate Training.