Gaining weight to increase maximal strength

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Not only do I still disagree that setting end result numbers like that is a reliable process, the better point is that it could potentially serve to end one's LP prematurely, or cause one to think they're doing something wrong when they're not.

Let's say you set a goal for me after my having given you my stats. You tell me, eh I'd say 315 with an error margin of +/- 10%. What happens when the weight gets "really heavy" once I fall within that range? Oop, must be nearing the end of LP: time for a reset, must be time for a light day, hell probably smart to go ahead and switch to intermediate programming.

Or the opposite could happen. Maybe I just have shit for genetics, and I'm sitting here spinning my wheels at a weight lower than you predicted, resetting my weight, putting in light days, eating 5000 calories (1,500 more than is necessary for me probably), thinking, fuck ive gotta be doing something wrong bc I'm not with the "error margin" that internet-dude-from-the-forums-who-knows-much-more-than-I-do predicted for me. All when really, my LP is just done.

The point isn't that given every single relevant factor we couldn't maybe, kind of sort of, with some degree of error margin, predict what you may or may not, possibly hit at the end of your LP. The point is, just run the fucking program, and see where YOU end up. See where YOU fail, and learn that about yourself. Take YOURSELF to the edge, and see where YOUR limits are. That's the beauty of the program, or part of it anyway.

Not knowing norms can cause you to end LP prematurely, or to drag it out too long too. In fact I'd say that for the average person, ending LP too soon due to not knowing what should be expected is a higher likelihood than someone completing LP exactly as designed. Your argument is based on the assumption that everyone running LP does so correctly. I would argue that MOST who don't have a coach do not run LP correctly, even if they read the books...twice.


2)

[A Schenck]

Knowing the norms ca assure that you actually do run LP correctly.

So my question still is how does the answer to the question change the actions that a lifter should take. When your squat stalled at 305, how did the standards affect your actions? Did you run the program as designed and maximize your potential, or did your standards based goals distract from effective programming?

[Charlie Davies]

OZ, I understand that you want a standard number. But there isn't one. All the coaches who've run multiple beginners through SSLP agree on this -- the variability is huge.

The right way to know when SSLP is over is by seeing the stall, watching the lifter to see that they are actually trying hard and not giving up too early, and checking for the common mistakes (bad form, too little food/sleep, too little rest between sets, too much bonus exercise).

Adding an additional check (is squat over N pounds?) adds nothing, and just misleads people.

Remember, there are two mistakes to make here: switching from LP to intermediate too soon, and too late.

A) SSLP for 3 months to N lb squat, HLM for 10 months to N+100 -- early
B) SSLP for 3.5 months to N+15 lb squat, HLM for 9 months to N+110 -- just right
C) SSLP for 4 months to N+25 lb squat + knee tendonitis, 2 month layoff, 2nd SSLP for 1 month to N+15, HLM for 4 months to N+75 -- late

I'd rather make mistake (A).
But in practice, because I had a number in mind for where SSLP "should end" that I couldn't hit personally, I made mistake (C) several times, with much worse results than in my little made-up scenario above.

[Tom Narvaez]

I think I recall Oz saying he was an engineer. If I'm remembering correctly, it makes sense why he is hostile to this type of thinking -- it is basically the antithesis of the way an engineer should think. However, ultimately, strength training is not engineering and human beings have a variety of sociobiological components that will prevent even the cleanest of LPs from presenting as a neat, predictable set of adaptations. For better or for worse, the current state of exercise programming is as much an art form as it is a science.

Even linear progression just approximates linear progress. Not every workout is as hard as as the last one. There are many cases where you add 5lbs and the next workout actually feels easier. This is because daily readiness fluctuates even in novices. Nobody, not even novices, adapts at a neat, predictable rate. We are not machines.

[Marenghi]

Id say we are machines. Very complex machines. Therefore its right to think like a scientist or engineer. The "art" is just a name for not having enough information and/or knowledge to calculate actions, so subjective experience chimes in. And thats the case here, OZ, as all others have tried to explain it to you: We know about huge population variability (that was measured in many studies), but we still cant predict the actual individual behavior.

Im again posting this link Which Weight Class Is Best For You? • Stronger by Science that can give you a broader picture what weight to pursue, when and why.

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

I think I recall Oz saying he was an engineer. If I'm remembering correctly, it makes sense why he is hostile to this type of thinking -- it is basically the antithesis of the way an engineer should think. However, ultimately, strength training is not engineering and human beings have a variety of sociobiological components that will prevent even the cleanest of LPs from presenting as a neat, predictable set of adaptations. For better or for worse, the current state of exercise programming is as much an art form as it is a science.
.

Not 100%. Masters degree in physics (physical chemistry), an MBA (finance focus) and half way through my masters in sustainability and I worked as a hybrid chemist/chemical engineer for about a decade before being cast into the EH&S role.

[crookedfinger]

The "art" is just a name for not having enough information and/or knowledge to calculate actions, so subjective experience chimes in.

Alright Spock. Logic only takes us so far. Art exists, the mystical exists and science will never have all of the answers. That doesn't mean science shouldn't try. But I am sorry, there is "art" in a whole lot of things. Subjective experience often invalidates the "hard data." Black/White meet Grey.

[Dlk93]

Alright Spock. Logic only takes us so far. Art exists, the mystical exists and science will never have all of the answers. That doesn't mean science shouldn't try. But I am sorry, there is "art" in a whole lot of things. Subjective experience often invalidates the "hard data." Black/White meet Grey.

I think there's a lot being conflated here. Sure there is art. But I also think there are certain matters which "science" (in the broadest sense of the term) must ultimtely dominate and, in principle, could dominate given enough time. Given every single possible fact about the human body and about the state of the world at a given time, we could, theoretically, predict where someone would end up on their LP. Now, will that ever happen and is any of this relevant to what coach's do? Yea probably not. In the meantime, we have to do our best with the science (again, using that term broadly) we have and fill the rest in with "art" (which I think, in that usage, is still quasi-science since it's based on the experienced eye of the coach). But the fact that it won't or isn't relavent doesn't negate the fact that IF we had all the facts and the scientific knowledge, we COULD predict what would happen.

But does any of that mean there isn't art, as in music, poetry, etc.? Of course not. You are talking about two different things and equivocating on certain terms.

[Marenghi]

Alright Spock. Logic only takes us so far. Art exists, the mystical exists and science will never have all of the answers. That doesn't mean science shouldn't try. But I am sorry, there is "art" in a whole lot of things. Subjective experience often invalidates the "hard data." Black/White meet Grey.

Beep beep, Scotty. My point is that basically there are no branches where things cannot be investigated per se (except in the metaphysical, e.g. religion) - its just that as you stated in many areas, there hasnt been enough data to only use science. Or to reiterate my post above: Art aka subjective experience helps when science isnt able to yet.

Id disagree with the notion that subjective experience can invalidate hard data. Not when the data is produced correctly. Thats not the view current epistemology has.

[Dalton Clark]

Even with sufficient data to construct some rough guidelines to go by as far as setting expectations, we can't account for every variable. A system as complex as the human body has a multitude of variables with regards to its physical function but for our purposes there are many psychological factors at play as well. In short, my suspicion is that if we were to account for age, height, and weight, we would see a very large degree of variance at when the sample population ended their LP. This is further complicated by the variance in how properly the program is implemented. As Oz suggested, even with good intentions the program is often not implemented perfectly. An average squat ending at 275 with a variance of -50 to 100 pounds is not that useful. From an electronics reverse engineering perspective (I deconstruct things for a living), you have to realize when your problem is best analyzed from a different angle. There is just no clean way to come up with a prediction since for every 3 factors we know, there are a dozen that we don't know and/or can't control.

Unless we can create a set of data accounting for almost all variables and assume the individuals referencing that data set have collected those data items on themselves, it isn't that useful.