This is simply incorrect. The novice, an untrained lifter, is capable of the greatest possible strength gains because they are unadapted. The stupidity inherent in the comment that DSeid made in which he states that “since anything works for a novice…” starts you off the path of thinking that there is no reason to optimize novice progression.
Instead, novice strength building is a magical time, no matter the age of the lifter, in which they can double or triple their strength in a few months after which they have to follow a periodization scheme for the rest of their lifting lives (the few months could be 8-12 for a young man who is willing to consume huge amounts of calories and gain weight for a solid year.)
Low reps force a maximum adaptation, high reps do not. There is no benefit to a high rep scheme, and especially not for safety. High reps with bad form are no safer than low reps with bad form. And a proper strength program like the Wendler 5/3/1 or Starting Strength start you at a weight at which it is simply impossible to injure yourself if you have proper form. In the case of Starting Strength you literally start with an empty bar and learn from there. If you aren’t comfortable with your form you are not encouraged to just barrel forward and increase weights with sloppy form, but to get coaching or even ask for form advice online (there are lifting communities which will, for free, watch your lifting videos and critique your form for you–an invaluable resources for a novice lifter that wasn’t available to me in the 1970s when I started down this path.)
I responded to what was recommended in the posts here.
That is bad advice for a novice … advice that you now state is not what these programs advise:
The programs may be very fine ones. I am sure that people get good results … along with lots of programs and approaches. Their entry advice may be great; yours however was bad. Our op read yours and took away this:
As to any claim that Rippetoe was not published in sport medicine literature because “it violated various rules of scientific thought” - I call absolute bullshit. More likely because there was no science to what he wanted to publish, just a “this is what I say works based on my personal experiences”. Of course his linear progession will make people stronger - any resistance program that follows progressive principles will - the issue is what is the evidence that one works better than another or is safer than another.
Assistance exercises make sense perhaps for someone whose goal is to maximize their bench or squat. Maybe it makes sense just because it forces some variety into the program. But dogmatically believing that it is part of some secret sauce? Silliness.
Just to add … this is GQ. Your humble opinion is the wisdom of a few very specific programs. You are claiming that they can “optimize novice progression” more than the ACSM novice advice. The ACSM offeres up the scientific evidence they use to come to that conclusion - do you have any actual scientific evidence to offer that any of these programs work better than that? Or just the gurus stating so?
5/3/1 eventually get you to low rep heavy weight. They start as low rep light weight. No novice can start at heavy weight, and it would be dangerous for them to do so. Heavy isn’t strictly relative, 100 lb squats are light even if they are hard for weak people to do.
I advised they follow 5/3/1, you seem confused about what I advised. 5/3/1 eventually gets you to where you should be which are cycles of low reps and heavy weight. But I never said you start with heavy weight. Why would you lie about what I said?
There is no real science on what works because science choose not to study meaningful progression. Instead they are lost in minutiae and nonsense on physiology and various treadmill studies. The few (and quite limited) studies that delve into serious lifting all show the benefits of barbell, full body exercises. Most studies are focused on things like how to decrease mortality in your average fat ass, out of shape American. The OP asked how to get strong, you gave him the prescription that’s appropriate for an out of shape fat ass who wants to make minimal progress so his heart doesn’t explode and maybe his Type II diabetes gets under control. OP asked how to get strong and how to get some definition to his muscle. I gave him evidence based practice that is supported by thousands of athletes since the 1970s that we know of (following the Star 5x5 protocol which started in the 70s.)
Assistance is assistance. You don’t ever have to do it but it may help you out. There are videos of powerlifters from the 70s doing “physique” day, which are all assistance type higher rep weights. They don’t have a cite in some nonsense medical publication but there’s a reason powerlifters back then had definition and tone and most powerlifters today are legitimately obese, 70s powerlifters weren’t willing to be fat tubs of shit just to be strong and knew that dialing in diet and doing some hypertrophy style days helped with that.
My honest advice is you buy the two books I recommended. Then check out Jim Wendler’s website and Mark Rippetoe’s website. SDMB is fine for a lot of topics but it is not a good resource for fitness or lifting, PM me if you want further advice. FWIW I’m a bit older than you and my lifetime maximum lifts include over 600 lbs on the deadlift, 450 lbs on the bench, 300 lbs on the press and 550 lbs on the squat. I can’t lift anywhere near that much these days, but I still lift far heavier weights than almost anyone at any age.
There’s a lot of nonsense people like to spout about lifting and unfortunately that will hurt your ability to do what you want. Lifting is very granular, and something I will say is if you read Wendler 5/3/1 one of the first things he says is don’t listen to random advice on message boards. The nice thing about 5/3/1 is you can do it for three days a week and invest 30-40 minutes per lifting session. After a month or two if you found that you’re super pumped into lifting and want to become an accomplished “Masters” lifter (that is a lifter over 50), you could switch to Starting Strength and run that for 5-8 months and you’d probably end up with a 300+ lb squat, 250 lb bench, 400 lb deadlift, 180 lb press etc.
I’ve known of guys a little older than me who within a year of starting a 5x3 linear progression to deadlift 500 lbs. That’s never deadlifted –> 500 lbs. These are real people who you can read about and even interact with on the right website. They aren’t studies you can theorize about on PubMed.
Martin, so no evidence to back up your stance and you obviously are not actually looking at the ACSM statement and the studies they reference. You’d rather talk out your ass. Okay fine.
Meanwhile I am not married to the ACSM. Their statement is based on a synthesis of the best available evidence there is available at this time as applies to maximizing the goals of a particular individual, be it strength, or hypertrophy, or power, or endurance, for the novice, intermediate, and advanced lifter. Where the evidence is sparse they so identify If someone wants to read what that evidence is, it is there for them. I have no problem if what someone prefers is bro-science and I am open to the very real possibility that what works well for one population being studied may not apply to another.
Personally I’d like more than “Because so and so says so” because another so and so has also said so something else and also has made a bunch of people strong for 30 years. And more than a “It worked for me.” If Rippetoe’s methods were that much better then every lifter would be following that and that alone and I suspect that Ambi can testify that there are a variety of approaches and schools of thought that different lifters swear by. And even they were preferred by comptetive lifters it in no way informs as to what works with the best balance of efficacy and safety for a novice.
More reply than this would require a Pit thread. And honestly this aint worth it.
Again, I’m talking about IRL, not on the internet. People are lots of things to lots of different people on the internet. How that relates to reality is another matter.
The closest I can find is the cite provided in the ACSM statement, a meta-analysis of 140 studies which found that “a mean intensity of 60% of one repetition maximum elicits maximal gains in untrained individuals” I don’t have the complete article but ExRx.net reviews that and other articles here and states specifically that meta-analysis found that novices “experience maximal strength gains with an average training intensity of 60% of their 1 RM or approximately a 12 RM, training each muscle group 3 days per week.” OTOH “Trained participants experience maximal strength gains training each muscle group 2 days per week with an average training intensity of 80% of their 1 RM, or approximately 8 RM.” Note, that is average intensity.
More highly trained individuals appear to need greater intensity (higher percent of 1 RM) a greater fraction of the time to make gains.
I think that we need to have a separate thread on exercise science and epistemology. There are some very interesting discussions to be had here, but this thread really isn’t the place.
I just want to second what filmore said, because this is absolutely the simple, common-sense advice for people just starting out: 8-12 reps to failure, don’t overdo it at first.
For bodybuilding beginners (and the broad nature of the OP question implies to me the OP is a beginner), there are really only 3 important considerations:
Am I using enough weight?
Am I training too hard, and therefore risking injury?
Am I using correct form?
A personal trainer will help with all 3 of these things. You don’t need to make a long-term commitment, just pay for a couple sessions to check your technique and help work out a program.
I would also add that if you are actually looking to get visibly bigger then getting some extra protein is essential. But really, there’s no need to bamboozle the OP with details and opinions when he’s just starting out; just enough to get started with for now.
Whoops, missed that the OP actually has been training for 1 year. Nonetheless I stand by my advice. Unless the OP has already had a few sessions with a trainer, and is doing 8-12 reps to failure with correct form, and not getting desired results, then those are the things to try first.
Thanks for the perspective placing. I should know by now - don’t argue against revelaled knowledge belief systems and have an appreciation that deep faith in the revealed knowledge is what works for some people. Lots in exercise, fitness, and nutrition falls under those umbrellas with all the trappings of fundamentalist religions. OTOH when believers witness in public with the goal of attracting new converts, maybe challenging revealed truth is sometimes appropriate?
In the midst of all of this mishugas you getting some clear advice has obviously not occurred. No that is not what anyone here is saying. Even Martin has clarified that such was not what he meant to say.
The advice you’ve gotten has run from hiring a personal trainer to a very strongly voiced opinion endorsing one of two particular programs that both focus on lower volume sets (but both of which first go through a lower weight phase learning technique) to the Amercan College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines which advise a novice (which despite your year of including weights I think it is still fair to call you) to lift at 60 to 70% of 1 RM for 8 to 12 reps for maximal strength gains (and a bit heavier if hypertrophy is the goal).
If I may be so bold what everyone agrees on is that you prioritize not getting hurt, and that you use progression, i.e. increasing the demands as you go. It is also widely agreed that as you move from novice to intermediate and advanced levels you will need to function at a higher percent of 1 RM (and consequently relatively few reps) more of the time to maximize strength gains. Now Martin’s preferred approaches basically keep the reps consistent and few and progress in weight lifted only but steadily. Other systems vary the intensity and volume combinations more. The ACSM review of the data advised more variation.
Interestingly no one here has spoken up for the other end of the sprectrum endorsed by the CrossFit crowd. And while I think CrossFit boxes have no quality control on the teaching done and the system has some real dangers associated with it, I’ve seen some get some pretty amazing results.
Another approach that has not gotten any love here is the gymnastic approach, such as promoted by sites like this and this one.
And of course some get stronger and more defined by mixing and matching approaches, as heretical as that might seem to some.
Many lifters swear by a protein supplement and there are informed debates over whether it should be before or after a work-out. A standard bit of advice is to have 15 to 20 grams of a high quality protein (such as whey) within the hour window after a work-out. Other supplements are more likely hookum and some potentially of harm.
Doctor Jackson, what where would you like to begin?
I just wanted to chime in and say Martin Hyde knows the score. Strength training has very little in the way of legit scientific study behind it. It’s more a craft than a hard science. Wendler, Starr, Rippetoe, et al., are master craftsmen who’ve helped thousands and thousands of people get stronger.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m actually honestly interested in how we should incorporate different sources of knowledge in thinking about program design and selection. I’m also a long-term gym rat with a PhD in statistics, so I do know a thing or two about the limitations of scientific studies and personal experience. Again, this is not the place for this, but the view that only the things that have been proven in studies can be accepted to be true is extremely conservative and at least a little bit less helpful than you think it is.
Those limitations were indeed exactly what I was referencing in post 27 with the comment “I am open to the very real possibility that what works well for one population being studied may not apply to another.”
Evidence-based analyses are always subject to change as more evidence becomes available and the population studied may not accurately reflect the population in question. Sometimes evidence is sparse and anecdotal experience is deep. Controlled trials are not the only things that should be accepted as provisionally true; they are however, if critically analyzed and their limitations understood and accepted, a more liely approximation of truth than revealed truths.
If I have a meta-analysis of 140 studies on one side and something said by someone promoting their line of DVDs and books and websites on the other side … I for one will weight the meta-analysis more heavily. I am funny that way. You are free to do differently. The reality is that there are many different methods to strength many with their own gurus and acolytes, and even many different ways to define “strength” - not everyone’s prime focus when they say they want to become stronger is to squat or deadlift a maximal amount or even increase what they can honestly say they bench.
Many in fitness become evangelical about the method/approach that they have adopted. They have joined an “us” which is fine, except for the need to attack the “them.”
I have zero issue with anyone saying that this or that system is great, that they recommend it, that it worked well for them. But once someone starts to claim that this or that system is the one true path, that only by joining their church and worshiping with their priest will salvation be had, and that other approaches that have actual evidence behind them are, to quote, “stupid” - well then they put themselves in a position to support their claim with more than appeals to the revealed truth of their chosen master.
But like you, I only speak for myself, and my personal fitness goals do not include maxxing out on a powerlift anymore than they include beating a PR in a marathon. (I more long after being able to do true unsupported handstand push-ups - not there damn it - than increasing my bench by X more pounds …) I care a great deal about my fitness and exercise regularly in an extremely varied fashion but would ever identify as a gym rat. I claim no personal expertise.
Given that this thread has mostly spooled out, why not discuss this here?