muscle mass and tonnage

[Mark Rippetoe]

Also, you can substantially improve your 1RM without ever squatting a new 5RM. Many people have done this, myself included.

How did you do this?

I agree. I also agree that Starting Strength is probably the best program for a complete novice, and I don't think that many people would argue against that. The few people I have trained, all used SS at their novice stage.
However, like I said in my previous post, this is not about training methods, this is about which parameters (volume, intensity, etc.) are more important for hypertrophy, and the research is not quite in agreement with your stance, as far as I understand.

The research is either shit, or it hasn't been done. Anyone who does not worship at the alter of Peer Review knows this is true.

Ok Coach, I tried talking some sense into this child. He clearly does not want an answer, is trolling.
My vote is to ban Zft now.

I just delete him. I don't think he's a troll, just an 1.) obnoxious asshole who likes to 2.) disagree with what he perceives to be authority. But then, so am I.

Zft you are raising the exact same issues I have raised before in this forum, namely:
1) SS's frequent proclamations that gaining strength is the best or only way to gain size are contradicted by statements in SS's own books and materials;
2) This forum is full of conformists and bullies that prevent rational discussion of #1.

It sucks because I came to this forum a huge fan of SS and Rip personally. Shit I even watched his cooking shows and tried his recipes. Now, while I still believe in the core program, I think Rip is a toxic, power-drunk personality. Notice how many smart people he used to work with have left the organization and started their own companies, and not because they have a different training philosophy.

You can come in here with a question like, "Hey I've been doing the program for awhile, love it, made great gains. But now that I am strong I would like a bit more size on my [quads, shoulders, whatever]. The book mentions using higher reps for this but doesn't set out a program. What should I do?" And instead of a reasonable response you'll get called a troll, accused of asking a 'gotcha' question, of being a wimp who is afraid to train heavy, or just stupid and bad at reading comprehension. But then Rip answers half the questions he gets with a link to the book--the book he apparently no longer stands behind.

I should say it's possible Rip isn't actually an asshole, but just likes to be one online. Being online does that to people.

This asshole, on the other hand, is a useless cunt. Same old you-guys-are-all-nutswingers bullshit all the time.

This thread is pure gold. the irony is that even successful bodybuilders and their coaches agree that increasing strength is paramount.

Here's an excerpt of an old post by Dante Trudel, aka Doggcrapp:


"Bodybuilding as a whole is extreme and you must go to extreme lengths to be an out of the ordinary bodybuilder in this activity ... Jon Parillo was on the right track years ago when he was trying to make bodybuilders into food processing factories...first I have to go over some principles I believe in regarding training and I’ll hit more on training details later on.


a) I believe he who makes the greatest strength gains (in a controlled fashion) as a bodybuilder, makes the greatest muscle gains. Note: I said strength gains--everyone knows someone naturally strong who can bench 400 yet isn't that big. Going from a beginning 375 bench to 400 isn't that great of a strength gain and won’t result in much of a muscle gain. But if I show you someone who went from 150 to 400 on a bench press, that guy will have about 2.5 inches more of muscle thickness on his pecs. That is an incredible strength gain and will equal out into an incredible muscle gain. Ninety-nine percent of bodybuilders are brainwashed that they must go for a blood pump and are striving for that effect--(go up and down on your calves 500 times and tell me if your calves got any bigger). And those same 99% in a gym stay the same year after year. It's because they have no plan, they go in, get a pump and leave. They give the body no reason to change. Powerbodybuilders and powerlifters plan to continually get stronger and stronger on key movements. The body protects itself from ever increasing loads by getting muscularly bigger=adaption. I’M going to repeat this and hammer it home because of its importance: THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE GREATEST STRENGTH GAINS OVER TIME WILL MAKE THE GREATEST SIZE GAINS OVER TIME ACCORDING TO THEIR GENETIC POTENTIAL. If you reading this never get anywhere close to your ultimate strength levels (AT WHATEVER REP RANGE) you will never get to your utmost level of potential size.

b) I haven't seen a guy who can squat 500 for 20 reps, bench press 500 for 15 and deadlift 500 for 15 who was small yet ---but I have seen a lot and I mean a lot of people in the gym and on these Internet forums that are a buck 65 or two and change, shouting that you don't have to lift heavy to get big ...

c) Training is all about adaption. In simple terms you lift a weight and your muscle has one of 2 choices, either tear completely under the load (which is incredibly rare and what we don't want) or the muscle lifts the weight and protects itself by remodeling and getting bigger to protect itself against the load (next time). If the weight gets heavier, the muscle has to again remodel and get bigger again to handle it. You can superset, superslow, giant set, pre exhaust all day long but the infinite adaption is load---meaning heavier and heavier weights is the only infinite thing you can do in your training. Intensity is finite. Volume is finite (or infinite if you want to do 9000 sets per bodypart)...everything else is finite. The Load is infinite and heavier and heavier weights used (I DON'T GIVE A CRAP WHAT SOME BUCK 58 POUND WRITER FROM FLEX MAGAZINE SAYS) will make the biggest bodybuilder (add high protein, glutamine and drugs to the mix and you have one large person).

d) The largest pro bodybuilders in the last 10 years ... are also the very strongest (Kovacs, Prince, Coleman, Yates, Francois, Nasser). For anyone who argues that they have seen so and so pro bodybuilder and he trains light---well I will bet you he isn't gaining rapid size anymore and that his greatest size increases were when he was training shit heavy going for his pro card ... Sadly heavy drug use can make up for a lot of training fallacies and leave people still uninformed on how they became massive."

And this is pretty much the last thing to say. Maybe zft can understand it coming from somebody else. Or he'll say that nononono, Rip isn't saying this at all, or some shit just to keep arguing because it's the only fun he has.

[tompaynter]

This asshole, on the other hand, is a useless cunt. Same old you-guys-are-all-nutswingers bullshit all the time.

Nah, nutswingers would imply that your toadies have balls.

If you look back at my earlier posts in this forum you'll see that I started off asking reasonable good faith questions. My attitude changed after receiving pages and pages of abuse for it. You'll also see places where I chimed in encouraging a newer trainee to just do the program. I talked SS up to friends and family, strangers in the gym. I've never known an organization to treat its loyal--nay, enthusiastic--customers this way. Do you find it helps to build good word of mouth to treat people like shit?

I see why they say 'never meet your heroes.'

[Shiva Kaul]

Maybe zft can understand it coming from somebody else. Or he'll say that nononono, Rip isn't saying this at all, or some shit just to keep arguing because it's the only fun he has.

zft: you study machine learning, right? In that field, people used to consider two kinds of error as distinct and even inversely related. But now they observe that, in most practical circumstances, minimizing the first one also minimizes the second one, so it’s more practical to just focus on the first one. Maybe “your idea” of involving two objectives isn’t carefully examined, and doesn’t reflect the latest thinking.

Consider doing as Rip, Andy, and Sully suggest, and obtain metabolic adaptations (such as “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”) with the prowler, rower, airbike, or ski-erg.

[zft]

My vote is to ban Zft now.

I didn't realize it was up for vote; mom says I have self-destructive tendecies, so can I vote for myself?

I should say it's possible Rip isn't actually an asshole, but just likes to be one online.

I think Rip is actually an asshole; but it's good to be an asshole. I wouldn't have it any other way. (He probably wouldn't either, because he's an asshole.)

Oh, wow. This must be the data that was requested.

The wonderful thing about proof by counterexample is you only need one example. You have like ten letters and multiple commas after your name,
surely you should know this!

This asshole, on the other hand, is a useless cunt.

It was funnier when you called him a shit-spoon.

or some shit just to keep arguing because it's the only fun he has.

At least we're in agreement here. I love a pyrrhic victory (on either side).

If you look back at my earlier posts in this forum you'll see that I started off asking reasonable good faith questions. My attitude changed after receiving pages and pages of abuse for it. You'll also see places where I chimed in encouraging a newer trainee to just do the program. I talked SS up to friends and family, strangers in the gym. I've never known an organization to treat its loyal--nay, enthusiastic--customers this way. Do you find it helps to build good word of mouth to treat people like shit?

I largely share your experience, although maybe I'm not quite as jaded (or care less). In real life, I (semi-)pontificate the virtues and efficacy of SS to my peers and I think both books are great. I don't really see these forums as a serious resource and I stand by my earlier proclamation that most of the (vocal) userbase are retarded sycophants, but I don't find that upsetting: the whole thing feels like some sort of strange/curious fever dream. So to me it's all just a bit of fun. No matter how vilified my "contrarian" position is and how stupid I am proclaimed to be, I'm going to squat 600 this year (in the distinct absence of a power belly, thankyouverymuch Carl) and they won't and---in the end---that's all that really matters.

I see why they say 'never meet your heroes.'

I'm not so pessimistic.

[coldfire]

How did you do this?

My deadlift was stuck for a long time (years) around 550lbs. It improved to 600lbs in the course of roughly 8 month using a lot of volume at the 70-75% (mostly sets of 5-7) with a few weekly singles at 90%+.

The research is either shit, or it hasn't been done. Anyone who does not worship at the alter of Peer Review knows this is true.

This has nothing to do with the peer review process. Do you consider all research on this subject to be useless?

Oh, wow. This must be the data that was requested.

No, the data is up there (at least some of it), you just chose to ignore it.

[Mark Rippetoe]

My deadlift was stuck for a long time (years) around 550lbs. It improved to 600lbs in the course of roughly 8 month using a lot of volume at the 70-75% (mostly sets of 5-7) with a few weekly singles at 90%+

Interesting. And it would be interesting to know why you were stuck for years.

This has nothing to do with the peer review process. Do you consider all research on this subject to be useless?

Anything appearing in a peer-reviewed journal has everything to do with the peer-review process. And not all of it is useless, only probably 90%.

[Steven Kalin]

I think Rip is actually an asshole; but it's good to be an asshole. I wouldn't have it any other way. (He probably wouldn't either, because he's an asshole.)

Rip is exactly the same in person as he is online, but you are the asshole.

[TommyGun]

Anything appearing in a peer-reviewed journal has everything to do with the peer-review process. And not all of it is useless, only probably 90%.

I couldn't resist commenting on this truth bomb. Only those who have suffered at the hands of a peer reviewed "journal" will truly understand the full implication. It's not what gets published, its what is not being published.
And those gate keepers sure as hell will toe the line. Peer reviewers self select, they have benefitted from the status quo of their industry, have comfortable positions at the top large companies in that industry, and risk harm to their professional reputation if they actually approve a paper for publication which conflicts with their industry and company.


So yes, feel free to view these "peer reviewed" papers with awe.

[zft]

zft: you study machine learning, right? In that field, people used to consider two kinds of error as distinct and even inversely related. But now they observe that, in most practical circumstances, minimizing the first one also minimizes the second one, so it’s more practical to just focus on the first one. Maybe “your idea” of involving two objectives isn’t carefully examined, and doesn’t reflect the latest thinking.

Consider doing as Rip, Andy, and Sully suggest, and obtain metabolic adaptations (such as “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”) with the prowler, rower, airbike, or ski-erg.

No, compilers/programming languages. And sure, in some circumstances the minima probably intersect in space. But in others they don't and I'm just arguing for that possibility. I understand you're arguing about the pragmatic approach, but I wasn't.

I couldn't resist commenting on this truth bomb. Only those who have suffered at the hands of a peer reviewed "journal" will truly understand the full implication. It's not what gets published, its what is not being published.

I used to feel a sense of reverence about peer review until I was subject to the process. But---as with basically any human affair---once you open the curtains, you realize what a fucking shitshow it actually is.

[coldfire]

Anything appearing in a peer-reviewed journal has everything to do with the peer-review process. And not all of it is useless, only probably 90%.

I meant that we do not need to rely on peer review, since we can examine those papers ourselves. Don't you think that the model of hypertrophy discussed in your article (Muscular Hypertrophy | Andy Baker) relies on similar data? Notice that it contains similar claims:

1. Mechanical tension is the main mechanism for driving hypertrophy.
2. Mechanical tension can be achieved with high intensity sets, or with low intensity sets with high proximity to failure:

Muscle fibers are placed under high levels of mechanical tension under two main circumstances: (1) when a heavy weight is lifted – think weights in the 1-5 rep range, or (2) when submaximal weights are lifted with higher reps but taken to (or very close) to failure – let’s say a 12RM