Progress on pressing movements

[Rob Waskis]

Well, I didn’t have any luck with sci hub either.

I’m still a little hesitant to dismiss all conclusions based on MPS data because it’s not as fully understood as we’d like, but I can’t say much more than that for now. Baby/bath water and all that.

[Rob Waskis]

Thanks for the positive comments Wolf. I’ve been following this stuff since Sully’s Year in Strength Science back in 2011. I certainly get that everyone is human and we all have biases. I also don’t always agree with the conclusions reached by various reviewers (the most recent lit review is an example of that, but that’s another discussion). That said, it’s unfortunate that this:

you assumed that because the researcher says his conclusion is X,Y,Z that we can assume without further investigation or critical thought that that conclusion is what the experiment or study actually showed.

is how I came across. That particular study didn’t seem to support the position Ivan was taking, and a paper opening with that line seemed a particularly odd choice to reference, that’s all. That line had very little to do with the study itself, in fact. I better understand where Ivan is coming from now, so I get why he chose that paper.

Again, thanks for the engaging discussion.

[Michael Wolf]

No prob, glad you read it in the tone it was intended. It sounds like perhaps you are not assuming as simply as your comment there indicated, which is good. But I think a lot of people are, and do.

[perman]

That and bunch of "we don't really know".

I am not an exercise physiologist but I think it's safe to say that it's not wise to make any strong conclusions based on physiological markers like MPS rates. Correlation is not causation. If what perman is saying is true, we would consistently see that higher frequency and higher volume training is significantly better than lower frequency and lower volume training, even in those poorly designed studies. But we don't.

So if you're disagreeing with experienced coaches with an argument that has physiological markers as a basis, I believe you should do a better job next time.

This is a programming discussion, and I indeed can't bring a perfect study to bear why I think Rip is in the wrong about his model. I think increasing frequency is only useful if you decrease intensity, and I don't mean weight, but RPE (that word isn't fully banned here right). Basically, if you want to increase your frequency, you may want "milder pills" to get a more even result. This is not feasable with the PR mentality of anti-RPE people who think you're automatically gonna half-ass it by throwing some judgement.

I basically think there are a bunch of programming ideas outside SS that lead to better results, I believe there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this with lifters who tried SS, TM and other programs and who have made better programming progress with different philosophies. Rip himself acknowledged Coan when he said he never missed rep, Tuscherer in their discussions about RPE, and various other people who brought ideas that now get mocked.

This could have been handled better by Rip if he just incorporated new ideas into the mixed, but he insisted on blocking any avenue of programming that seems too easy, even if it objectively lead to fantastic results in the people who used this properly.

[Jeff LC]

I actually couldn’t access either additional paper you linked (other than the abstracts and what you quoted).

I still don’t get what you’re driving at. Are you saying that since we can’t quantify exactly what modulates MPS at a molecular level, and therefore can’t predict subsequent performance based off it, that any conclusions drawn from MPS are invalid?

you all have all lost track of what you're even arguing about i swear

[Devyn Stewart]

This is a programming discussion, and I indeed can't bring a perfect study to bear why I think Rip is in the wrong about his model. I think increasing frequency is only useful if you decrease intensity, and I don't mean weight, but RPE (that word isn't fully banned here right). Basically, if you want to increase your frequency, you may want "milder pills" to get a more even result. This is not feasable with the PR mentality of anti-RPE people who think you're automatically gonna half-ass it by throwing some judgement.

I basically think there are a bunch of programming ideas outside SS that lead to better results, I believe there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this with lifters who tried SS, TM and other programs and who have made better programming progress with different philosophies. Rip himself acknowledged Coan when he said he never missed rep, Tuscherer in their discussions about RPE, and various other people who brought ideas that now get mocked.

This could have been handled better by Rip if he just incorporated new ideas into the mixed, but he insisted on blocking any avenue of programming that seems too easy, even if it objectively lead to fantastic results in the people who used this properly.

I used to think the same way until a I tried RPE training for myself. It works great for some people, but performing a lift 1x/week does for lots of world champion powerlifters does too. If you’re really here to learn about training methods and not just to troll, I would highly recommend trying PR-based training, especially if you aren’t already really strong. Personally, I always found myself either unintentionally sandbagging or failing when using RPE.

[perman]

I used to think the same way until a I tried RPE training for myself. It works great for some people, but performing a lift 1x/week does for lots of world champion powerlifters does too. If you’re really here to learn about training methods and not just to troll, I would highly recommend trying PR-based training, especially if you aren’t already really strong. Personally, I always found myself either unintentionally sandbagging or failing when using RPE.

Here to learn? I have 3 times your post count dude, and my profile is 5 years older. I've been here for a long time and enjoyed the place more when Rip didn't so thoroughly regulate this markedplace of ideas and the best ideas won out in discussion rather than winning out through the suppression of unwanted ideas.

I have tried both, and I disagree that RPE-training is anti-PR training. As such RPE-based training is more complete because it includes both caution and the attempt to increase. The standard operating assumption under RPE-based training is that you are going to go up, but the way of structuring sets allow you to pick a better weight that day.

That being said, I don't even explicitly use it now, but I train submaximally, and I inform my programming decisions based on RPE and bar speed. People who've never trained this way have less resolution along a dimension of information that is just as fundamental as intensity, volume and frequency. If you go up in weight while RPE has gone up, your strength that day may be lower even if it's a PR. Recognizing that allows you to pick a better weight to accumulate volume on.

It's really quite obvious. Force production is not merely the weight you lift, but how quickly you lift it. Rip recognizes bar speed, but for some weird reason doesn't recognize RPE which correlates to it highly in studies. If you don't have a bar speed device or a camera, RPE allows you to better evaluate whether force production has gone up and you legitimately got stronger, and improves your adaptability. It's just a tool in your tool kit, not something to be dogmatic about. Which RPE users rarely are compared to people who reject it.

[Satch12879]

I used to think the same way until a I tried RPE training for myself. It works great for some people, but performing a lift 1x/week does for lots of world champion powerlifters does too. If you’re really here to learn about training methods and not just to troll, I would highly recommend trying PR-based training, especially if you aren’t already really strong. Personally, I always found myself either unintentionally sandbagging or failing when using RPE.

Here’s the other side; lots of people have gotten “fantastic” results using our approach to programming and training after failing to make progress with other methods. I’m sure SSOC has clients who they’ve had to fix lots of form and programming problems that were developed being coached by others.

[perman]

Here’s the other side; lots of people have gotten “fantastic” results using out approach to programming and training after failing to make progress with other methods. I’m sure SSOC has clients who they’ve had to fix lots of form and programming problems that were developed being coached by others.

Sure. Though counting the "other place", there are far more stronger people there, and they went to the other place because it was not acceptable anymore to train in speak divergent opinions about programming too loudly. So numerically, the numbers support different programming from SS programming being overall superior at least if we're counting based on current and former residents of a forum who are self-selected to be in favor of SS-style programming.

Though studies looking into individual variability support the notion that different styles of programming will rank differently in optimality for different people. Individual responses are the new frontier when it comes to understanding responses to strength training as a stimulus.

[Satch12879]

Sure. Though counting the "other place", there are far more stronger people there, and they went to the other place because it was not acceptable anymore to train in speak divergent opinions about programming too loudly. So numerically, the numbers support different programming from SS programming being overall superior at least if we're counting based on current and former residents of a forum who are self-selected to be in favor of SS-style programming.

Though studies looking into individual variability support the notion that different styles of programming will rank differently in optimality for different people. Individual responses are the new frontier when it comes to understanding responses to strength training as a stimulus.

Is that what you guys tell yourselves?

Wow.