you might be surprised that those benching 300 or more pounds might only be able to squeak out 10 push ups maybe 20 if they had not included push ups as part of their routine.
I have done both, strength and endurance. I feel much stronger with endurance, body resistance exercises then I did when benching 315lb.
Not so sure that body weight can’t get one there as well. Once, in college, got a rings-man friend of mine to the gym and got him to the bench - something he generally did not do as gymnastic folk generally do not - and he, at 150 pounds, benched 300. Now looking at the Starting Strength tables (not too dissimilar from other ones) that is in the highest (Cat. V, elite) levels of strength. All done with bodyweight. And multiple reps every day when you think of it. Also had lots of power and local muscle endurance - something pure strength trained folk do not necessarily or usually have. Basic physics is that where you place the fulcrum can leverage your weight against you. Nothing makes a muscle stronger more than making it do just barely what it can do and the muscle does not care if it is your own body weight (from supported to leveraged) or an iron plate.
Waymore, indeed I am not a strength training coach. And I have no experience in setting a goal for maximizing my performance on a powerlift as that is not part of my broad fitness obectives. Then again, I have taken myself from someone focussed almost exclusively on endurance fitness in my early 40s with relatively less strength (first marathon then tris) into someone who now includes resistance exercise (for all of power, strength, and local endurance goals … and sure a bit of vanity too) as a somewhat larger part of my mix, and for kicks I just did my 1 RM bench - and I am somewhere between Cat III and Cat IV, a solid intermediate level. I’ll brag some - not bad for a 55 year old who probably should be including more sets of 5 or 3 in my mix by now and for whom strength is just one of many fitness goals.
I have no idea what the strength status of the members of the ACSM panel on resistance training is. (Although I suspect that many actually are quite fit.) Amazingly enough though I can analyze the evidence about, say what works for depression, without being a therapist or a psychiatrist or ever having been depressed, or what works to treat a particular cancer wthout being an oncologist or cancer survivor. And clinicians saying what works is less strong evidence than a body of replicated RCTs. Often what “everyone knows” turns out to be incorrect … especially in the black magic world of fitness.
This strikes me as very odd coming from someone with a PhD in statistics. You, of all posters here, do understand the need to control for confounders. The specific ACSM statement that caused the cries of burn the heretic in this thread was that for the novice 8 to 12 reps at 60 to 70% 1 RM max is more effective than fewer reps at a higher percent of 1 RM. And given equally motivated and equally supported individuals a rich body of RCTs and meta-analysis shows that to be the case. Again, that does not mean that fewer reps at a higher percent of 1 RM is not also effective, and one suspects that in the real world moderate term results are more dependent on the effort a person puts in and the support they get. As I put it before deep faith in revealed knowledge works very well for some people. The results a novice obtains working out with a group of others who are like-minded and a coach who pushes him/her is bluntly going to more dependent on how they psychologically respond to that group dynamic and the concept of lifting heavy things than on the fact 8 to 12 at 60 to 70% is actually slightly more effective for a novice.
The programming of SS is not something new, ultrafilter. And beyond the novice level the ACSM and Rippetoe only differ in rigidity of Rippetoe; the ACSM also advises that lifting heavy is needed to maximize strength at higher levels. (Lower strength evidence recommendations on points that differentiate the differing strength focused programs, such as Wendler’s, out there.)
Like Glassman, Rippetoe seems to be a fantastic salesman and marketer. They have both created cults around approaches that have been around for ages claiming them as their own inventions and convincing a bunch of folk that only through them lies the one true path. Both get people more fit, for variable aims of “fitness”, and both work better because of they get people motivated by way of that belief. All well and good. Happy for anyone that has found a path that works for them. But SS posters here are like the shrill harpies who claim that only low carb or vegan or paleo is the one true path to nutritional health.
It has been implied here that SS (or maybe Stronglifts) are THE way that individuals have gone from novice to elite level. Anybody able to back that claim up? My impression is more that implied by Shodan’s post - that elites have a used variety of approaches to get to that level and that Olympic level programs do not follow Rippetoe at all. If anyone wants to provide something that demonstrates otherwise I would be interested.
I have no idea if this is a good book or not although your say so is good enough for me. But that linked blurb
is, right off, something that superficially sounds good and that is in truth tremendously stupid.
I exercise with a longer-term goal in mind as much if not more than for the effect it produces today, during the workout or right after. I did train for particular events in past years - those were medium-term goals - but longer-term I exercise to live better while I live longer, the longest-term goal of all. I am not “training” to be able to dance all night and be a person pegged to lift up my daughter in a chair at her son or daughter’s Bar or Bat Mitzvah when I am somewhere in my mid to late-eighties, 30ish years from now … but I am exercising with that goal in mind.
Let me try to explain. Everyone should exercise, because movement is healthy. It gets your heart rate up, warms up your muscles, burns calories, engages your mind, etc. We’ve all heard the benefits of regular exercise. But burning calories and raising your heart rate are things that happen today. During and for a short time after the exercise.
When you train for strength, or increased aerobic capacity, these are adaptations that take months and years worth of work to improve. It takes knowledge, forethought, planning and record keeping.
“Exercise every day” is sound advice, but not a training program. This is the distinction between exercise and training Rippetoe is trying to make. Most casual gym goers, recreational sports players, and joggers just want to get some regular exercise, which is a laudable goal. Training programs, like Starting Strength, or Jack Daniel’s Running Method, are for people with more focused goals (squat 400lb, finish marathon in under 3 hours, etc.) in mind and the time and dedication to pursue those goals seriously.
Nobody’s ever done a proper randomized controlled trial to investigate whether parachutes reduce injuries associated with jumping out of airplanes, and yet most of us feel pretty good about the relationship there. That sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it’s completely serious (and incidentally published in a respected medical journal). You do need statistics to study effects that are small or relationships that are complicated, but not everything out there falls into that category.
That said, as I said earlier, I would like to see studies that compare the standard recommended programs against Starting Strength or other popular strength-based programs. I want that data so that we can start the conversations that require it.
I’m not completely convinced that you’re familiar with the programming of Starting Strength. There’s more to it than just doing low reps at heavy weight. There’s a writeup here that describes the large scale structure of the program, and an official FAQ that describes how to figure out your starting weights and how to progress from session to session. That’s the program, not some vague recommendation to squat for three sets of five.
That crowd is out there. I want to be clear that I’m not one of them. Starting Strength is a very good program, but it’s not the end-all and be-all. However, I do claim that a program that includes a weight progression and several different phases that adapt the workload to a trainee’s current state is going to be better for strength development than a program that’s really just “lift in a particular weight range”.
Anybody who claims that SS/etc. is sufficient to take a novice to elite is talking out their ass. A typical man can use SS to take his squat from zero to roughly 300. To get to 400 or beyond is going to require a different program, and by the time you hit the elite or Olympic level there are no standard programs.
This sounds more like an issue of your definitions of words not matching up exactly with theirs. The distinction they’re trying to make is between going to the gym three times a week and doing stuff, and having a twelve week plan that includes a progression in some skill as well as active recovery. We usually call that first thing working out or exercising, and the second training. I think you make the same distinction with different terminology.
Rippetoe mostly trains beginners. He’s was once a powerlifter, and advised some Olympic coaches, but most of his experience is training beginners in his own gym. Hence “Starting” Strength. PPST (the book ultrafilter recommended) even explains that advanced lifters should know better than him how to tailor their programs to fit their own experience and specific goals.
But there is an awful trend in American weightlifting to focus on “technique” instead of pure strength, and US weightlifting has been pretty unsuccessful in the past few decades. Rippetoe rightly criticizes this, and raises quite a few hackles in the world of Olympic weightlifting because of it. You’re probably referring to this controversy.
And the difference between taking any equally motivated and supported novice and doing a linearly progressive program aimed at the moving target of 8 to 12 reps at 60 to 70% of 1 RM (and then dropping into higher weight lower volume as they progress … the ACSM standard model) and the SS initial phases is … like a parachute jump? Not. It is well studied and somewhat favors the former over the latter … so long as the novice actually uses 60 to 70% and does not self-select less than that as many on their own will do.
I am not completely convinced that you’re familiar with “the standard recommended program” i.e. the ASCM recommendation. The key bit is progressive principles. Rippetoe states that one particular way, his way, is the way. His way, unless I horribly misunderstand, is focused on varying weight to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. The ACSM discusses that progressive overload can be accomplished by varying weight (intensity) … and by varying number of reps, tempo, rest periods, and volume. They specifically note the specifity of training for the specific goal and that periodization is a key concept. Rippetoe reserves periodization for higher levels. The ACSM cites studies (“most not all”) supporting classic periodization (initially higher volume/moderate intensity rotating into higher intensity lower volume) and undulating periodization (more mixed basically) as both giving better results over terms greater than six months than programs without periodization or reverse periodization for strength measures. The ACSM’s main mantra exactly what you are stating: a successful program will include “a weight progression and several different phases that adapt the workload to a trainee’s current state” They are just open to volume variation as a stimulus to further gains as well and accept the multiple studies that demonstrate all else being the same starting out at 8 to12 reps 60 to 70% of the ever moving 1 RM gives better progress.
Rippetoe’s basic novice approach of keep volume (low reps) the same and keep intensity as high as you can manage at that level (so also constant as a fraction of 1 RM, “resets” duly noted) was the traditional way dating back to Berger’s in the 60s 3 sets of 6. It’s been studied; it’s been compared. It just comes up short more often than it does not.
Impressive accomplishments there, no doubt about it. My point is, getting stronger in the powerlifts is outside the area you seem to be focused on. If I wanted to get better at endurance sports, I’d seek out your opinion. If I’m trying to increase my 1 rep max on squat, probably not.
Thing is, there’s been lots of well designed, long term studies of depression. That’s not the case with strength training, especially when focused solely on max strength. That’s why I say it’s a craft, not a hard science. I’m going to rely on the advice of expert craftsmen in this field, not on some group that may be very fit, but knows little about powerlifting and have zilch in the way of data to back up their claims.
You may feel stronger but the simple fact is you were stronger when you were benching 315. The reason why guys who lift huge numbers often don’t have huge corresponding numbers in body-weight only exercises is because their bodies have so much more mass to lift than the guys doing 100 pushups a set but only benching 185lbs.
In context of that post, about cranking out a number of push-ups, that Ambi, is simply not true. Local muscle endurance is a different beast than peak maximal one repetition effort and unless I completely misunderstand stoplight he is stating that his sense of “feeling strong” was better being able to crank out more push-ups and able to control his body in space, than with being able to lift a bar with weights and put it down. Many of us in practical terms think of “strength” in the terms of how we use our muscles in real life functions and being able to do more than one max lift every 4 minutes, and controlling our bodies in space as we do things, feels stronger to some of us than lifting an arbitrary heavy object once. In fact it is stronger for different sets of muscles. Training and strength both are somewhat task specific. Training best for 1 rep max bench does not translate into the local muscle endurance needed to crank out dozens of push-ups or pull-ups, even at a given body weight. And it does not maximize the strength of the various stabilzer muscles (such as in the core) as does body weight exercises. Slowly lowering into an iron cross on the rings requires tremendous strength and max powerlift numbers poorly predicts the presence of that strength.
Also strength is relative to body mass. Yes, I appreciate that special circumstances like yours make norming to body mass a bit difficult, but the guy with more mass who benches the same as the guy with less is by most standards the weaker lifter.
I know this is not the official definition of strength - but I have a hard time in a practical sense thinking of someone who can’t do at least 30 to 40 push-ups as “strong” no matter how much they bench.
Waymore, again, for the specific claim in question the strength of the evidence is very very solid, multiple RCTs, honestly quite a bit better than what is available for issues regarding the treatment of depression. (Please let’s not go there.) For that specific question the data is there. Again, in the real world outcomes depend on what people actually do in the real world, not what they do when measured in a controlled setting. Those told to lift at 60 to 70% for 8 to 12 reps may actually lift at 50% and not push themselves the way someone in an SS gym might with the competitive juices flowing. But the specific issue has an evidence-based answer based on high quality evidence.
Ok, first of all, it just seems to me that this is an argument in semantics and word definitions. I mean, flat out, a person who can lift 315 pounds is stronger than someone who can’t. Period. Full stop. No relative, weight-proportionality or anything. If by “feeling stronger” stoplight meant something other than brute strength, then that is something he should come clarify. Because I was simply saying that he was stronger when he could bench press 315 pounds than now when he can’t.
Also, who said anything about a massive guy and a smaller guy bench pressing the same weight? I’d agree, under those circumstances, the smaller guy would obviously be the stronger of the two. But no one ever said anything about any such circumstance. What I said was that men who lift outrageous pounds of weight often are so massive that body-weight exercises are heavy-duty exercises in and of themselves. So high reps are not likely.
Finally, where did the specific number of “30 to 40” pushups come from? Again, it seems like you’ve just inserted it. Just for the record, I’ve never seen a man who could bench press 315 pounds who couldn’t do 30 to 40 pushups.
Mind linking to these studies?
The meta-analysis was already linked to, along with a site that gave some detail about it. But the whole list is cited in ACSM statement and is the basis of their giving that specific recommendation a rating of based on A-level evidence in that A through D scoring system - “A: Randomized control trials (RCT; rich body of data) Evidence is from well-designed RCT that provide a consistent pattern of findings in the population for which the recommendation is made. Requires substantial number of studies involving substantial number of participants.” - lots in the statement does not hit good enough evidence to make to A-level.
Go to the statement and look up the articles corresponding to those numbers if the meta-analysis of 140 studies already supplied is not enough.
Ambi, agreed we are getting into asides over what is meant and stoplight can speak for himself.
To clarify, I was looking at two different types of strong. The power lifter gauges their strength and compares themselves to other power lifters by how much they can max bench press one time or how much they can squat. I could bench press 315 while my workout buddy could bench 405. In that context he was stronger than me.
The second type of strong is what DSeid mentiioned …" able to control his body in space, than with being able to lift a bar with weights and put it down"
Gymnasts are a good example of strong. Their strength comes from being able to lift, control and manipulate their body weight in space for an extended amount of time.
Having done both, I feel much stronger being able to control my body in space.
As was mentioned upthread, the idea of a one rep max for a novice is a contradiction. A novice, by definition, is somebody who has a new max every single work out.
That’s why people who are actually strength trainers scoff at this kind of study.
Consider this, from probably the most well known trainer of novices there is. Or, consider this discussion among people who’ve actually done the work and gotten strong.
Read this article and decided it should be posted in this thread. Pretty much sums up my view on the issue.
The problem Waymore is not so much in the science but in the media’s distorted portrayal of it … of which that article is part of.
No, all the latest cutting edge scientific research does not say that. Some media hype does and some marketing people trying to sell their packages (just as Rippetoe sells his) do. And while many questions of interest are not well addressed in the scientific literature, some are. The evidence-based guideline actually strongly supports barbell movements and in particular the compound ones. (They are open to machines “based on level of training status and familiarity with specific exercise movements as well as the primary training objective.”) Core stability is promoted not to increase strength as measured by performance on the powerlifts or to increase hypertrophy but for its benefit in overall athletic performance and injury prevention; it is not included as part of the cited resistance exercise guidelines. The actual evidence-based review does not require super-short high-intensity muscle-confusion routines (which is not to say that there are not individual studies that support them and some that do not) but instead discusses the importance of rest periods and that evidence of moderate strength supports rest periods of at least 2 to 3 minutes for strength and power training; less solid evidence supporting 1 to 2 minute rest periods for hypertrophy training with more moderate weights; and also based on fairly weak evidence that brief rest periods are best if muscle endurance is the goal. The closest the actual evidence based guideline gets to “muscle confusion” is the established principal of periodization and mentioning some limited evidence of possible superior gains with undulating periodization for strength gains.
The fact that some, like that column’s author, have a “vulnerability to anything that sounds like science” does not mean anything about what the science is … it means more about the guillibility of those so vulnerable and the inability of those people to understand how to actually critically evaluate a body of evidence. It means that the writer is among the many who are fairly scientifically illiterate and who then blame science for confusing them or claim that science is “wrong”.
Again, no question that any strength training program built upon progressive overload will result in significant gains. Nothing magic about Rippetoe’s version other than that it has people who believe and the social systems associated with belief really do matter when it comes to effort and effort really does matter for performance gains.
I must admit that my issue in this thread however is less defense of the scientific method and what the science actually says than distaste for the arrogance of revealed truth and for those who tried to force what they think of “strength” (performance on the three powerlifts) as the only strength related goal worth having or considering.
What strength-related goals do you have in mind that aren’t helped by increased performance on the big lifts (the powerlifts, the standing press, the barbell row, the chinup, and olympic variations)?
Your question has little to do with my statement.
Is a swimmer who is looking to get stronger necessarily most interested in maxxing out his or her bench, deadlift, and squat single lifts? (And those are the powerlifting definitions of strength, the only metrics that matter from that perspective.) Is that necessarily that individual’s goal? Is the strength thought of as the strength needed for wrestling or gymnastics defined by maxxing out on bench, deadlift, and squat single lifts? The strength that a runner or cyclist wants to complement his or her fitness both to increase performance in the sport and to reduce injury risk? Is it true that nothing counts as working on strength as many of us mean the word unless it further increases those three lifts 1 rep maxxes?
Nothing wrong with powerlifting as a sport and lifting as heavy as possible for one rep each on three specific lifts as a goal for its own sake. Enjoy. Literally, more power to you! Assuming though that such is the strength goal that everyone has and achieving it is the best or even only way to achieve any and all other strength goals (rather than one useful tool in the toolbox) is simply both arrogant and stupid. IMHO.
What a painful thread.
- I’m not against science at all, nor have I once said “do things this way because it’s my personal experience.” I do not feel there is a single study that has holistically shown any scientific answers on strength training. I particularly find the study DSeid keeps touting to be flawed on several levels. If you have actual science that unambiguously shows, “doing this is the most optimal way to build strength” please show it to me and I will follow it to a tee. Unambiguous would be similar to the science that explains why gunpowder is flammable, as an indicator of what level of scientific proof I’m looking at.
I am not looking for meta-studies or trials with poorly designed controls. Those are the same kind of studies that can tell us in the same week that eggs are more dangerous than cigarettes and that eggs are a great part of a healthy diet. Those are the same kinds of studies that suggest saturated fat is Satan, that dietary cholesterol is what controls blood cholesterol, that sodium is the biggest culprit for high blood pressure etc. That last one is particularly interesting because based on something that no doctor would claim is typical–reducing sodium intake is a general cure for hypertension, the government has actually developed and promulgated an entire eating plan/philosophy (DASH) that for something like 90% of people with hypertension it has no hope of curing them.
- Strength is the ability to impart force upon an object. The greater the force you can impart the stronger you are. The easiest measure of strength is to take a standard object which can be varied easily in weight. If a person can move that standard object at 500 lbs and another person can only move it at 300 lbs, the person who can move the 500 lb object is stronger. That applies at least in so far as we’re talking about strength in the muscles used in that lift.
So for general strength then comparing strength with something like barbell curl or tricep extension isn’t that useful. Instead lifts that recruit the vast majority of the body’s musculature would serve as the best measure of strength. There are two such exercises–the deadlift and the squat, that recruit almost every single muscle in the body. Thus the best measure of strength is how much you can deadlift and how much you can squat, because they directly translate into more strength in any other activity the human body can perform.
A lineman that can squat 900 lbs is stronger than one who can squat 300 lb, it’s just not a debate point. For a lot of activities outside of pure strength competition of course, being the strongest doesn’t always matter–but it often helps. Fighting sports for example there is a problem in that getting extremely strong also results in high body mass which can limit mobility and aerobic capacity. Famed strongman Mariusz Pudzianowski transitioned to an MMA career after a storied career in strongman. He was probably the strongest guy in the sport and may even still be, but he’s certainly not the best. He actually lost some 40 pounds after his first few fights because, in his words, he was just too big for MMA. He got gassed too easily and had trouble keeping up with other guys in the ring.
- We have a case history of probably over 10,000 people who have been trained by Bill Starr, Mark Rippetoe, and Jim Wendler. Additionally we have all Olympic weightlifters, who train for different lifts but still generally train to be strong. Both powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting generally are won by the strongest competitors (weightlifting less so than powerlifting due to technique issues being much more important in Olympic weightlifting, but weak people can’t win gold medals at weightlifting.) Generally speaking Eastern Europe on east through Russia is the world’s breeding ground for the best Olympic weightlifters as measured by medal wins.
While the specifics vary, the “typical” programming guys in that region of the world follow involve doing something like: Doing 5-8 sets of 2-3 reps in the snatch, doing low rep high weight front squat sets, doing some form of deadlifting typically just one or two sets at low reps as part of a “heavy” day, then on a “light” day an oly lifter may do 10 reps of the snatch for a couple sets. Light days generally are being done to hone technique. In sports where being strongest is what allows you to win, the standard formula is low reps at heavy weights with a lot of little variation. But no one is going in and doing isolation exercises for 8-12 reps 3-4 times a week and winning at those sports.
If you produce a study of vague scientific value that suggests all these lifters are wrong I want to see you create a lifter that can beat them with the study recommendations. Likewise, take something like hitting a baseball. Ted Williams wrote a book about it, if you think you have a better technique I want more than just a study to prove it, I want you to put some hitters in the major league.
Competitive sports in my opinion are a great way of forcing people to use the best applied science available since people always want to win. I’m not saying foolishness and idiocy doesn’t work its way into sport (like players pissing on their own hands in baseball for grip increasing reasons) but generally ideas that flat work less well tend to get pushed out on the field of competition, over time.
- There’s a clear and concise argument as to why lower reps are better at building strength:
-Muscles are strengthened by stressing them to the point that your body undergoes an adaptation.
-We know that lower rep ranges cause the greatest adaptation because programs that utilize this technique result in the most rapid strength gains.
-My hypothesis: take novice lifters, have one group do 3 sets of 10 reps at the bench press or the squat once a week. Have the other do 3 sets of 5 reps. Have each of them increase the weight every week, as much as they can while still being able to successfully finish their programmed sets. Fast forward one year. I would go to the bank and cash out 100% of my checking account, cash out my retirement money and then go the deed for my house and throw it into the pot and bet all of that, that the lifters doing 5 rep sets will have a far higher strength one year later. I think you could do this study with as many or even as few participants as you want and probably see this result. The only issue with a very small sample size is you may get one guy who just has awful genetics in terms of ability to get strong and the other guy is a genetic specimen for example, but I think even groups of 10 “off the street” lifters almost certainly the low rep guys would as a cohort get stronger. With big groups it’s undoubtable. If someone gets me a grant to conduct this study I’d be happy to do it, but for some reason none of the studies I’ve seen on strength ever are structured in a comparative way that makes sense like this.
-Since we know that low reps produces the greatest strength gains, we also know that if the goal is to get generally stronger we should focus on lifts that work the most number of muscles at once. That’s how we arrive at the squat and the deadlift since they work almost everything. How do things like the overhead press and the bench press get in there? Well in the 1950s the concept of having a really big, well defined chest got popular. You can be really strong without looking like Reg Park, but people do not appear to want to be strong without looking like Reg Park. The overhead press is actually probably a superior lift to the bench press but doesn’t create the sort of pec-results that people want, so over time the bench press got a lot of attention and was eventually made a part of powerlifting when the sport started to come together.