Go Back   Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Bodybuilding Forum > Training

Beginner Routines Discussion (From Cerebro's Am I on the Right Track Thread

Training discussion on Beginner Routines Discussion (From Cerebro's Am I on the Right Track Thread, within the Bodybuilding Forum; The fundamental disagreement here is whether it is proper to give out the same program to a "wide range of ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-06-2008, 02:10 PM   #11
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

The fundamental disagreement here is whether it is proper to give out the same program to a "wide range of people". I say no. I say it is irresponsible and I have the backup of the strength and conditioning community at large rather than just the word of one person.

The loading IS SS, Jeffo. Without the loading parameters it's a group of exercises, sets and rep ranges. How a program is progressed IS the program. If you say the loading is too aggressive you are saying the program is too aggressive. It doesn't make sense.

If you give someone the same program but tell them to do 3x8 (yes, that is a common thing as the basic SS exercise template is a common thing) and tell them to either load the bar each workout, or add reps and/or sets before loading, depending of various factors, are they doing the SS program? Of course not.

Then you talked about basically peridizing it for some people..again, it's linear progression so if you periodize it it's no longer SS. The program is the program.

I don't understand the insistence of the AB format being the best or desirable over a Mon-Wed-Fri schedule. Rip doesn't say that. He leaves it up to choice. The AB format will overwhelm people quicker than a simple A-B-C format anyway.

However I didn't say don't do it. I was content with making some simple additions/replacements and just say back off the loading a little bit. Perhaps add reps sometimes instead of loading. Etc. I will say to those who want to reccomend the same program to everyone who comes on the board, that I will be happy to direct the PM's to them . And as I said before, if you are going to recommend a program, you take on a certain responsibility to understand it backwards and forward and ALL the pitfalls.

You are insisting that everyone, for instance, if they have problems to just load slower but for god's sake keep squatting? Why? There are no other things that can be done? Squat variations that are in themselve primal movements? I can design a fantastic beginner's program working around the back squat entirely if someones doesn't want to do it or their back won't take it. And I guarantee they will be strong as hell.

The idea that you are training people but giving them all the same program. Dude, I'm sorry but you are not doing your job if that is your job.

Do you do postural assesments? Do you do any movement testing? How about a lunge test as Gray Cook advocates? Much better than a squat test. Shoulder stuff? Facepulls are the tip of the ice berg if there is scapular instabiltiy and immobility in the shoulders. Do you look at the shoulders, before you have everyone bench pressing and overhead pressing? Is there a history of impingement. If so, what grade?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but the idea of trainers running around giving out SS to everyone sounds like trainers needing to be fired. But I didn't say scrap the program. I said modify it. And if Sentinel wants to suggest an alternative at least he put actual thought and time into it rather than just saying...do this program.

But I don't know if it's your job or you are just taking about helping people.

As far as the question whether some people don't get hurt and some people do it is about compensation and time. It has just as much to do with what people learn from the program, the ideas and habits they pick up, as anything else.

You might have a guy who's ineffiencies and perhaps pathologies cause hime to reach threshold pretty quickly. You may have another guy who has various problems but his effiency saves him for a while. And sometimes it's just reaching a threshold and you can't really even explain it. There's always the guy who says 'I've been doing this for years with no problem'.

Certainly SS is about 1000 times better in this regard than the typical leg press devotee. For instance. To say that produces more back injuries than almost anything else is probable not an exxageration. And yet there is always the guy who will plug away for years with no problem....but unless he stops working out early enough, as most do, his time will probably come.

You make it sould like all's a person has to do is put in a little hip extension, do some glute activation, but then go back to the same mundane handful of things and pound them in the dirt year after year. It will take more than that to fix some of the gross ineficiencies that people will display and it will take some branching out, eventually, for everyone to reach their potential.

And yet SS would teach us that what is useful can be counted on your fingers. Of course I'm going speak against that.

As for assistance, just substituting static split squats progressing to lunges or what have you, will fix a lot of problems at this stage. It will adress hip mobility and glute strength. For shoulder stuff there is a whole lot more to scapular stabibility than face pulls. Actually the most common and important thing would be serratus anterior activation. Some pushups (with a focus on scapular movement) would be more helpful in this regard.

For scapular retraction the program has rows. That is scapular retraction. A good assistance to train retraction, depression, and external rotation at the same time would be wall slides. But the first thing that needs to happen is people need to learn how to do rows properly.

Now my sig matches much better with do SS becasue "everybody knows" that it's great than it does with someone suggesting an alternative plan.

Anyway, I don't think SS needs to be periodized. May ass well go to an beginner/intermediate program. I would simply, before I washed my hands of SS and just recommend things to those whom I know more about, say that I see no need for people to squat three times a week. They can replace one squat session with either a single leg squat or front squats and a dedicatated PC movement. They can certainly do a three workout program rather than a two and get just as good a result. And that will give more flexiblity. I would suggest that one pressing session a week be replaced with dumbells and a slightly higer rep range at the same volume.

I would suggest that people don't listen to RIP about there being no need for flexiblity work or at least mobility work because some well placed mobility work can solve a lot of these problems a lot quicker, epecially if they are combined with appropriate strengthing (but I digress).

I would suggest that there is no need for a beginner to periodize during the week and that one simply needs to embrace the many different ways it is possible to progress on a linear basis. And when I say periodize I mean there is not need to periodize and individual exercise in terms of intensity. If a person wants to do lunges at 2x8 and a press at 3x8 on friday or whatever then they can certainly progress from week to week on a linear basis for that exercise.

I agree completley with you about people coming to the program with baggage. But you can't have your cake and eat it to. Everyone, regardless of experience comes to resistance work with at least some baggage. We start accumulating baggage especially as we reach and leave puberty. EVERYONE has ineffieciencies even if they've never touched a weight.

But you say it's a NOVICE program. Well rip defined novice by how a person can progress. What other criteria was given. By that definition either a person is a novice or they are not. Habits and ineffiencies are not part of the definition.

And yet a person COULD progress LIKE a NOVICE WHILE displaying those ineficiencies that are slowly destrying him. One of the biggest problems that come out of the commercial gym environments is people who's extremeties are stonger than their core. Someone who's "strength" is greater in some respects than his stabibility and control. And stabibility and control is strength in the long term. But in the short term someone can display strenth without control and stabibility. This is why you can see people hitting 315 to 350 on deads the first time they try but also see their back round over and all the load being taken by the spine and soft tissue. They use muscles, and the wrong ones, to force their passive tissues to do things they weren't to do. And the passive tissues can really shoulder a load but it's like you timing belt in your car....one day it's fine and the next day..POP.

This is a small part of what I'm getting at. What happens to someone as they become more advanced depends very much on the foundation they lay at the beginning. Just because you don't see everyone suffering problems in the short term doesn't mean they aren't picking up things and carrying them along that WILL come back to haunt them. And I am really just concerned with this community. I can only learn from the larger community I cannot change it much.

LOL, I'll be back later to continue this discussion. And Kane, you posted while I was writing so I wasn't ignoring you. I will also post more stuff on single legs and just why I make such a big deal about them. And Jeffo, this is just a discussion to me, anything I say, it's all to advance our disscussion and I WANT to be disagreed with, bro. When everyone one just agrees with everying I say, I don't have to challenge my mindset. So thank you very much for doing what you are doing as I think it is invaluble. And we don't completely disagree with what important

EricT's Sig:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 03:40 PM   #12
Jeffo
Rank: Member
Experience: 10+ Years
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 99
Country:

Default

Holly crap that's the longest post ever I'll just start at the beginning...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
The fundamental disagreement here is whether it is proper to give out the same program to a "wide range of people". I say no. I say it is irresponsible and I have the backup of the strength and conditioning community at large rather than just the word of one person.
- With the internet, it's the best place to start without knowing the person's background, what injury or postoral problems they have, and/or being able to see them in action. Sentinel's modifcations assumed he needed to do a Glute-Ham raise for some reason.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
The loading IS SS, Jeffo. Without the loading parameters it's a group of exercises, sets and rep ranges. How a program is progressed IS the program. If you say the loading is too aggressive you are saying the program is too aggressive. It doesn't make sense.
- If you define the progression alone as "the program," then the program is too aggressive, especially on the squat, and should be scrapped. A program is more than just the progression scheme, however, and the exercises, sets and reps are part of it as well. I see nothing wrong with the basic exercise selection, the basic A-B set up, or the basic 3x5. Scrapping the whole thing and chucking in a bunch of new exercises and/or assistance stuff, using a new rep scheme and moving to some kind or double or triple progression right off the bat isn't always necessary. If it's necessary later on, fine. I don't see why it's a good idea to modify things before bare bones has proven ineffective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
I don't understand the insistence of the AB format being the best or desirable over a Mon-Wed-Fri schedule. Rip doesn't say that. He leaves it up to choice. The AB format will overwhelm people quicker than a simple A-B-C format anyway.
- I never said it was the best or even better than. For a novice, it's no worse than... An A-B-C is also fine, so I see no reason to change it in the beginning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
You are insisting that everyone, for instance, if they have problems to just load slower but for god's sake keep squatting? Why? There are no other things that can be done? Squat variations that are in themselve primal movements? I can design a fantastic beginner's program working around the back squat entirely if someones doesn't want to do it or their back won't take it. And I guarantee they will be strong as hell.
- I never remember saying this... I can remember saying, "Start a novice here and change it if necessary" several times, but I can't remember saying the above.


The next part of your post assumes I'm some idiot, so I'll just pretend you didn't go there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
But I didn't say scrap the program. I said modify it.
- And I didn't say not to modify it. I said modify it if necessary.


And I didn't mean to suggest that if you have an issue, some hip extensions, PC activation and scapulae retractions would solve it all the time. These are useful to help the novice IF he's having trouble, but of course you'll have to branch out as things go on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
Anyway, I don't think SS needs to be periodized. May ass well go to an beginner/intermediate program. I would simply, before I washed my hands of SS and just recommend things to those whom I know more about, say that I see no need for people to squat three times a week. They can replace one squat session with either a single leg squat or front squats and a dedicatated PC movement. They can certainly do a three workout program rather than a two and get just as good a result. And that will give more flexiblity. I would suggest that one pressing session a week be replaced with dumbells and a slightly higer rep range at the same volume.
- I see nothing wrong with this at all. If you need this or want to do it, sounds fine. Where we differ, I think, is that I would tell someone to modify it as such only if they need to or want to. I wouldn't catagorically say, "Don't do the original Starting Strength, do my variation instead," unless I knew that particular person needed that particular variation or modification.


The stuff about inefficiencies was good to read. There are lots of things that can crop up, not just for novices. The beginning is definately a crucial part, in terms of both ballance and training habits. Thanks for including that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
And Jeffo, this is just a discussion to me, anything I say, it's all to advance our disscussion and I WANT to be disagreed with, bro. When everyone one just agrees with everying I say, I don't have to challenge my mindset. So thank you very much for doing what you are doing as I think it is invaluble. And we don't completely disagree with what important
- Well that was nice to say. And yeah, we seem to agree on the important stuff.

Cheers,
Jeff
Jeffo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 03:48 PM   #13
Jeffo
Rank: Member
Experience: 10+ Years
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 99
Country:

Default

Nice post Kane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane
you can't just throw a program at someone and say go do this. Simply because you need to know that the person starting the program understands what to do, how to do it, and that they're capable of doing it.
- This is a problem you'll never get around, not on the internet anyway. You have to just assume some basic things and go from there. Either that, or just stop giving people advice I guess...

Jeff
Jeffo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 04:45 PM   #14
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

Well you responded to Kane talking about assumptions. The only assumption you are making is that SS is the best way to go for everyone. What are these other assumptions you are talking about?

Quote:
With the internet, it's the best place to start without knowing the person's background, what injury or postoral problems they have, and/or being able to see them in action. Sentinel's modifcations assumed he needed to do a Glute-Ham raise for some reason.
I can pretty much guarantee that there are some basic assumptions that CAN be made that CAN lead to some pretty safe bets. You keep mentioning GHR's as if it is some sin to throw in some GHR's . Anybody who wants to do some GHR's provided they treat with common sense, be my guest! But as far as assumptions I can guess that a bigger percntage of people will be served by doing some glute/ham/stabibility/lumbar endurance right off the bat. It'a a damn good assumption and, well, GHR's actually do fit the bill quite well and won't screw up anyone's program if they start little and build up. Not the only choice of course. If I say, there are better ways to start and you say stay with standard SS then there is no difference. We both simply think there is a better way to start.

A program is how you program thing. A group of exercises and sets and reps is a WORKOUT not a program. Does 4x6 instead of 5x5 fundamentally change things, for instance, in terms of a programming environment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffo
Scrapping the whole thing and chucking in a bunch of new exercises and/or assistance stuff, using a new rep scheme and moving to some kind or double or triple progression right off the bat isn't always necessary. If it's necessary later on, fine. I don't see why it's a good idea to modify things before bare bones has proven ineffective.
I think you are still reffering to Sentinel's post. I thought this discussion has moved on beyond that. I already said I didn't think his rigid modificatios were necessary. As far the ways of progressing it's as if I have challenged a fundamental tenant of faith. Most people given the chocie will naturally go in and load the bar workout to workout. As well they should. All I said was give some flexibility and choice as to progression for when that fails rather than the constant "beat myself to death, backoff, beat myself to death, back off" deal. I certainly never mentioned chucking in a whole bunch of new exercises. A few chucked in and perhaps a replacement here or there.

You said this:

Quote:
There's no need for this. There are millions of ways to get around this by simply cyclying or varying the load and taking the progression a bit slower.
Again, cycling or varying the load would suggest that you are dealing with one exercise. You mentioned squat and said that so that is all I was reffering too. But you have a problem with chaging rep schemes. Changing rep schemes would be a way to vary the stress while continuing progression. That would be changing the loads as well.

All I am doing is defending my right and anyone's right on this board to recommend what they want. Rippetoes didn't write a bible. He is not the only strength trainer in the world and he's not even the most successful. Is he great? Hell, yes!

The part of me making it sould like you are an idiot....if none of it's true then say so. Trainers get paid these days to hand out the same programs to all their clients or to just do random fancy things to look cool. So, bro, if you are saying that people pay you to train them on Rippetoes, then I can only say that a trainers job is to develop programs for their clients based on each ones individual needs and goals. So get offended but I am sick of the state of "personal training". I don't know if any of the things I mentioned are true! I am simply reacting to the idea that you start everyone you train on the same program. My apologies for any offense I have caused. I am willing to back up what I recommend to people and certainly back up every choice I make for those I train. In many exhaustive words

I understand what you are saying with just recommending standard SS and not YOUR variation. But I for one have complete confidence in my recommendations and have no real problems with recommending them . I am talking about my recommendatins not other peoples.

Yes, this is another long post but that is because I'm trying to get a lot of ideas across.

The thing about inefficiencies though, the part I want to get across is about all these people who are doing fine with this SS or any other format. The people who aren't getting injuried (seemingly) and just get stronger and stronger...what have you. It goes back to the comment that Jonson made about form being more important than progression. And to bring Kane into this because I want to respond to him as well....

Kane commented once that "how you lift it is more important that how much you lift". Or something to that effect. I don't know if people really understand just how pervasive this question of form and inefficiencies are. See, most of those people who seem to be doing quite well with SS or similar aggresive loading stategies, if you were to look at what quite well LOOKED LIKE you would immediately re-think how well they were doing.

People can have an amazing ability to keep getting "stronger" on a lift with the worst technique imaginable. And I think we can all imagine what I am talking about. You have the guy that deadlifts with his lower back. You have the guy who caves over on squats and basically does good morinings all the while getting higher and higher. I could go on and on. Basically their technique breaks down more and more as they load but based on what you see on an internet journal...they are doing well. They are "progressing".

For every guy whose bad technique and inefficiencies shut him down early and force him to make some changes you have a guy who will go on and on for a couple years until a certain threshold is reached. But here is the thing most people really don't know at the beginning: You can never go back. Once that stuff has caught up to you and you have to scrap certain things, change the way you train, add a bunch of supportive stuff and all of it EARLIER than should have been....you can never really go back and do without it. You have forced more complicated programming on yourself than would have been necessary and you'll never quite reach the potential you would have. Maybe if you have a really good corrective exercise guy but even then basically what has happened in a way is that you have to train like an advanced guy who doesn't have advanced strength. I believe this kind of thing will happen to people who do well with SS and moave right into a 5x5 and keep barelling along.

P.S. Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about triple progression. Never said that. I was talking about single progression in my examples. But some double progression could be used for a challenge on days when you feel froggy (the beginner) but triple progression would be a little much and would have to be done as part of a systematic approach (a build up and back off). But single should do it most of the time.

Last edited by EricT; 03-07-2008 at 04:46 AM..
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 05:20 PM   #15
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane
1)Core strengthening is emphasized as an overall way to increase your lifts...so everyone does soo much core that it actually impacts their training in a bad way (ie. fatigue, soreness, etc)
The problem I think is giving people a general statement: "You need core work". Then definining core work in some rigid way: " Core work is this and that, but not this other thing or that". And then giving them a list of exercises to choose from with almost no guidance as to why you would need a certain exercise and when and just what is really needed for one person as opposed to another when it comes to this.

I say in that case, I'd rather see people do nothing but the basics plus some "ab" work I agree compelely and have stated quite recently that beginners especially are being given way too many choices with no knowledge as to how to make them.

And wasn't that you and me that discussed this idea of beginners being and intermediates being told "never to modify" and then suddenly one day they wake up strong enough to be given a list of assistance and accessories, lol. But they have hardly learned anything about how and when to use what and when it comes to "core" work they don't even know that that means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane
2)Alot of people starting out are not very strong and some are even a bit heavier...this may not seem like a problem but (sorry anuj but I'm not trying to pick on you) when you say do some GHR's and they can't physically do them it is a big problem. Because they're in the program they usually stick with it and use a horrid form or use their arms to help them...which IMO defeats the purpose of using GHR's. If you can do them properly then they are a huge asset.
Sure but why single out GHR's. They're actually easier and more forgiving, especially on a machine, than all the standard slow lifts. Because exercises are in a program PERIOD people stick with them an use horrid form and your last sentence applies to everything. You know a bad habit people have is to flex their elbows during deads...sort of a way to use their arms.

But you seem to think people are not allowed to use arms on GHR's. Why? Assistance is OK. It's not assistance that makes it wrong usually it's a lack of glute control so the the torso bends. But on a machine if you can simply move the knee rest away from the knees until you can do a rep...then move it closer to progress, you should be fine.

With an externally loaded weight then there is a weight that a person should be able to do it well. With bodyweight type stuff it's harder to change the weight without changing the character of the exercise. Some imperfection is to be expected at first. It's just a different thing.

But ANY exericise is specific and will require a period of adjustment and strenghening. I don't care if you can deadlift 400, you may still find that you can't do a ghetto GHR unassisted. Maybe compare it to pullups. When are people allowed to work on an exercise, provided certain standards are met, so that they can improve strength on THAT exercise (which should of course extend to other things in different ways). If you expect everybody to be able to do bodyweight things perfectly right off the bat without any assistance or something than bodywieight things are out, cause it ain't gonna happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane
3)Like was said earlier, these loading cycles or rapid progression are coming at an expense of form and safety. People loading a bar and doing quarter squats while their back quivers like a scared animal. Sure they're squatting more and more weight, but the cost is too high. Same goes for alot of other exercises, namely bench (bouncing weight off the chest) and deadlifts (heavily arched back or a heavily mechanical movement)
Exactly. To me the ASSUMPTION is that they are not doing these things you describe when we say "thus and thus is good for everyone". But more often than not, that is what is going on, I'll bet ya.

I think a really huge big deal is being made about exercises and programs for beginners in the first place. We have on one hand "Go to the ultimate program resource sticky and pick a program" which is too cavelier and on the other "This is the best place for everyone to start" which is too rigid. The answer is in the middle.

For beginners you have this period of time where strength is basically availible almost for free. You take someone whose been "desigining" their own splits or what not and you simple put him on ANY organized training routine where he has to adhere to a schedule rather than some haphazard approach and you have a period of fantastic strength gains and then stagnation. Of course, of course, there are better and worse ways. You pick some basic stuff and you progress on it with a volume that is appropriate for the frequency and you are mostly there.

But then you have the question of "training age". Well I for one don't have any single training age. How many people you think come on a board with a bench press age of 3 and everything else all over the place? At least if you want to think of it in these simple terms.

I understand completlely about this phenomenom. I've fallen into it. I am sitting here surrounded by books...some of them a lot more "accessible" than others. Rip has written these books that people can sink there teeth into and really understand these simple concept and it gives a very concrete and easy to follow picture and a way of PROGRAMMING instead of a list of workouts. Most people have never really had that and it is easy to get all swept up in it. Look, he's not the only one.

Beyond Brawn became a bible for many and really, just as good as SS in many ways. Hell, Arnold's Encyclopedia comes to mind . Dinosaur training used to be the stuff man. Hey, everything has something to offer. There is no bible. And as far as books, there is much more advanced reading to be had when someone is ready for it.

Last edited by EricT; 03-06-2008 at 07:06 PM..
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 07:48 PM   #16
_Wolf_
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 5-7 Years
 
_Wolf_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,790
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via MSN to _Wolf_
Default

ok, i have the time to respond to this....most of what im gonna say has been said a LOT better by Eric and i dont want to paraphrase what he's said because its just regurgitating the same information....but ill put a few things across which I feel strongly for

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffo View Post
Why not? Just beause some people have had trouble with it? Just because some people needed to add certain assistance stuff to correct problems? Just because some people loaded to aggressively and their form broke down and they developed hip flexor or knee pain? To catagorically say "do NOT do Starting Strength" just becuase some people have reported problems with it reminds me of your sig.

Starting Strength as written is fine for any true NOVICE, no exercise modifications or assistance work necessary until/unless they are necessary. The only thing that needs to be modified is the loading, which can be too agressive for someone without a more experienced person watching them. Here's where the internet breaks down :(

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one bro!
Jeff
Jeff,

1.) My MAIN reson for not liking the SS protocol isnt the exact same as Eric's (i dont get pm's asking for help - which is a good thing because i doubt id be able to help anyone compared to Eric). i dont like ss because everyone makes it the be all and end all of training. not just on this forum. you go to bb.com and ask a newbie question what happens? EVERYONE insists on you doing starting strength. you go to intensemuscle.com and ask this questions - same thing happens. enough already.

2.) starting strength is a template. it must and should be manipulated. why is that no one advises regular joe's to do sergio olivia's program? because it MUST be modified. why is arnold's program good but it needs to be tweaked? because not everyone is the same.

3.) similarly, the only thing about starting strength which i like is:
(a) it makes you focus on the squat which i think is very important. many people say the power clean is important too but ive never done that so i cannot speak for experience.
(b) it relies on steady progression in terms of weights.
(c) it will probably help with motor unit recruitment because it focuses on a select few good compound exercises.

4.) now, here is what i do not like about the program
(a) it does not allow exercise flexibility. you cannot do just 5 exercises and expect to progress all the time. even if you say that "use the program till you stall and then shift over to another program", what about the muscle imbalances which have already taken place because of running this program for that time period? not only will there be severe muscle imbalances there will also be form issues because if you practise bad form (because of muscle imbalances of course) you end up using that forever and then you need to go all the way back to the drawing board to learn it again. i know this because i did the texas method and i ignored my deadlift for over 6 months and i brought my A2G squat upto 295x4 @ 185 BW whereas my deadlift was not even 225x1 at the same time.
(b) why rely ONLY on 3x5 as a set-rep scheme? if you're a beginner you can progress on virtually anything. its important to switch things up sometimes. having something rigid and set in stone isnt right. why not have the trainee do 3x5 squats for 2-3 weeks and then make one day into a 3x10 @ 50% of 3x5 for 1 workout a week and then switch it to something different later on? it doesnt need to be just one or the other.
(c) weak points. this may tie in with (a) but unlike muscle imbalances, weak points are where an exercise specially targetted to that point must be used. for example, with rippetoe's theory, if my sticking point on the bench press is midpoint, i should preferably just reset the weight a bit to allow for some strength gains on my triceps and then i should go at it again. however, wouldnt it have been easier on me if i had been doing other exercises focussing more on triceps before? wouldnt i have been able to avoid this problem?
(d) unilateral exercises. i have had IMMENSE success with these and from the stuff i read by eric cressey, alwyn cosgrove, dan john, etc i see that a LOT of people benefitting from unilateral stuff...this doesnt need to be set in stone but used regularly on a flexible level. for example, you can do unilateral RDLs after your deadlifts every 2 weeks for 2-4 sets depending on how you feel...or, you can replace military press with unilateral dumbbell shoulder presses for a couple of weeks.

5.) i would've added an (e) above but perhaps this is better...you mentioned this as a problem already: too rigid a loading regiment. thats a problem in my books too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffo
PS: Which assistance exercises have you had to use with people? I've had to use pull throughs and hip extensions to help with PS activation, as well as face pulls and scapulae retraction stuff to help the shoulders out. So far nothing else has been necessary, but I'm sure you've had more experience with this than me.
unilateral stuff
tons of shoulder prehab stuff
glute ham raises
something tricep-specific
something that works the bottom end of the bench and press
pull-ups for back work

there are lots of things that can be added in from time to time....

Sentinel

_Wolf_'s Sig:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
_Wolf_ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 10:00 PM   #17
Kane
Rank: Middleweight
Experience: 3-5 Years
 
Kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,238
Country:

Gender:
Default

I remember our talk about waking up one morning and being an advanced lifter And I've definitely started to change my way of thinking. If we or many other members on the board were discussing our workouts and someone said "you need more core work", we (not trying to sound cocky) would have an idea of how much core is enough, how to fit it in, and what frequency. So I totally agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric3237 View Post
Sure but why single out GHR's. They're actually easier and more forgiving, especially on a machine, than all the standard slow lifts. Because exercises are in a program PERIOD people stick with them an use horrid form and your last sentence applies to everything. You know a bad habit people have is to flex their elbows during deads...sort of a way to use their arms.

But you seem to think people are not allowed to use arms on GHR's. Why? Assistance is OK. It's not assistance that makes it wrong usually it's a lack of glute control so the the torso bends. But on a machine if you can simply move the knee rest away from the knees until you can do a rep...then move it closer to progress, you should be fine.

With an externally loaded weight then there is a weight that a person should be able to do it well. With bodyweight type stuff it's harder to change the weight without changing the character of the exercise. Some imperfection is to be expected at first. It's just a different thing.

But ANY exericise is specific and will require a period of adjustment and strenghening. I don't care if you can deadlift 400, you may still find that you can't do a ghetto GHR unassisted. Maybe compare it to pullups. When are people allowed to work on an exercise, provided certain standards are met, so that they can improve strength on THAT exercise (which should of course extend to other things in different ways). If you expect everybody to be able to do bodyweight things perfectly right off the bat without any assistance or something than bodywieight things are out, cause it ain't gonna happen.
The only reason I singled out the GHRs is because I'm seeing alot more people trying to do them and anuj had mentioned them. Plus they're not an easy exercise to do. I have problems with them at times and I'll give myself the assistance to help through a sticking point. But there is also a big difference between helping yourself through the whole exercise and bumping yourself past a sticking point and resuming the exercise. What I was comparing it to was a 'spot' on bench when someone is touching the bar the whole way or taking off an 'excess' of resistance. The assistance should be used to assist and not perform the exercise (if that makes sense lol). Obviously pullups and even pushups can be troublesome at times (as most bodyweight exercises are not easy).

The other thing I was going to mention, and is a bit why I picked on GHRs, is that last week someone tried to do them and obviously didnt have the strength for it. This person couldn't control the negative portion and came down too fast, tried to grab the handles and ended up hyperextending both his knees. The difficulty of GHRs is very deceiving IMO. I would even consider recommending a Ghetto GHR to see if you're ready for the machine.

Again, I'm not saying GHRs are bad and should be banned or never attempted. I'm saying that if you're going to do something you should be well prepared for it and know what to expect.


ps. I believe my quote was "Its not how much you lift, its how you lift it"

Kane's Sig:"Pain don't hurt" - Dalton

"NO, this is my squat rack. Go get your own!"

"Damn that's shit heavy" - Wolf


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kane is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 10:28 PM   #18
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

Anuj, great post.

Kane what you are talking about is an exercise being recommended to people who are not ready at all for it. Now some machines are different than others and ghetto GHR's are VERY tough so I wouldn't suggest that as a test. But you make a very valid point about someone not being able to control the negative enough not to hyperextend his knees.

But this is how I teach the exercise. I advocate that people have something to catch themselves with. That's right, their hands. Probably a reason not to use machines sometimes. As far as assistance, bro, not many people can do a real unassisted GHR right off the bat. Most will have to assist themselves just to get going to some level or just enough to get past that sticking point so I was saying the same thing...a little assistance to assist but not perform the entire exercise, lol. Annd then control and perhaps accentuate the negative. I'm talking big strong guys. It is really difficult I admit and I would not every advice that a beginner do them without a catch. And I wasn't really advising that beginners do them anyway.

I was just exxagerating a bit to make a point about a huge big deal being made out of GHR's when really a lot of people aren't ready for heavy deadlfits but are able to pull heavy. There is a big difference between something like deadlifts and GHR's in that regard. If you aren't ready to do a GHR the exercise will let you know right away. Hopefully you won't hyperextend you knees finding out but you see what I mean. You'll find out, for instance if your lack the core control completely, or your glutes are too weak, etc...

Yet we are going to make a big deal out of GHR's, with built in feedback while we recommend deadlifts to everybody who comes along? Now most know that I am a deadlift addict, fanatic, and whatever else you want to call it but deadlifts do NOT have the built in feedback of a simple movement like GHR's. Less complex means more instant feedback. More complex means less.

I see people all the time who deadlift PAST their bodyweight right off the bat. Right off the bat. And I can tell you that they probably aren't ready to deadlift say, 10 to 20 percent past their bodyweight and yet they will be exceeding that in no time...yet you may have a person who doesn't have the core control to support his own torso in a GHR or can hardly do a plank.

And even when people start off moderately light you put them on this aggresive loading, every other week they are deadlifting TWICE and their apparent strength can quickly and easily outstrip their actual strength. And what I mean by that is that they are already skating on the edge of what they can do safely and things are only getting worse, not better, owing to all the bad baggage building up we've been talking about.

Deadlift being just an example of course.

So why am I going to worry about GHR's? Although I see your points completely and they are valid. You can get hurt doing anything. The problem is the things that HURT US AND WE DON'T EVEN KOW IT. Are you catching my drift?

I mean I've seen people go on and on about how you should cheat on curls . After a while it becomes people just talking about form just because they've heard the word mentioned once or twice. You can get hurt doing any exercise with catastrophic failure like you spoke about. But MOST of the injuries don't come all at once, right? They are the hidden thing waiting to pounce. But yeah, if peope can't evne control the negative at all....probably need to start with some very basic strengthening but I would advise peope have some way to catch themselves. But what I don't understand is why did they hyperextend their knees instead of just letting their hips flex forward to decellerate? It seems more a problem of a person really just needing some coaching you know? I certainly don't advize things I'm not willing to teach people how to do, give them some things to expect, etc..
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 06:38 AM   #19
Kane
Rank: Middleweight
Experience: 3-5 Years
 
Kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,238
Country:

Gender:
Default

Some very good points. I agree that most injuries occurs due to some sort of accumulation of things and not usually right off the hop, with their cause being virtually undetected until injury. That especially hits home with deadlifts since, like you said, the weight seems to skyrocket in no time.

I like doing the ghetto's because I don't have to worry about grabbing a pair of handles (the machine at my gym has two small handles just ahead of the knee pad on either side), if I need some assisstance or a 'safety net' I can go into some form of a pushup. But I suppose if you're really prepared for the machine and you're ready to grab the handles, it would be just as safe.

I guess the long and short of it is, I would suggest GHR's if I knew the person was capable of safely executing the exercise (assisted or otherwise). The same can be said for almost all exercises. I'm also going to say that I agree with GHRs being an excellent exercise, somewhere along the lines they should definitely be introduced into the routine. The suggestion I've made to some people that I 'coach' (I use that term very very loosely) is to do some wide stance squatting when GHRs are not really much of an option (ie more assisstance than actual exercise), and have some pullthroughs mixed in as well. Just something to get the glutes and hams involved by something other than hamstring curls. I'm not 100% sure if I'm right in doing that but it seems to have worked for myself and a few others I've helped.

Oh yeah, he hyperextended his knees basically because he, imo, panicked. Coming down his glutes and hams couldn't slow him down and he tried to grab the handles but didn't get a good grip or missed them (I'm not sure which) and basically ended up at the bottom of a reverse hyper supported by his knees.
Kane is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 09:44 AM   #20
Jeffo
Rank: Member
Experience: 10+ Years
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 99
Country:

Default

Eric,


I fail to see where we really disagree. It seems like you're just writing like we disagree.

Here's the only place where I see a disagreement. It's the first day of training pretty much.

YOU and SENTINEL: "Always modify the program at the beginning to take care of a few things that tend to be a problem for some people."
ME: " Basically start it as written, with less aggressive loading, unless/until modifications are necessary."

We don't need to add GHR's, shoulder pre-hab stuff, and something that works the bottom half of the bench press unless/until those things are needed. Certain situations require certain modifications, but we don't need to make those modifications unless one of those situations somehow applies.


As far as getting up on your high horse and talking down to me like I'm an idiot, it was things like these:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
You are insisting that everyone, for instance, if they have problems to just load slower but for god's sake keep squatting? Why? There are no other things that can be done? Squat variations that are in themselve primal movements? I can design a fantastic beginner's program working around the back squat entirely if someones doesn't want to do it or their back won't take it. And I guarantee they will be strong as hell.

The idea that you are training people but giving them all the same program. Dude, I'm sorry but you are not doing your job if that is your job.

Do you do postural assesments? Do you do any movement testing? How about a lunge test as Gray Cook advocates? Much better than a squat test. Shoulder stuff? Facepulls are the tip of the ice berg if there is scapular instabiltiy and immobility in the shoulders. Do you look at the shoulders, before you have everyone bench pressing and overhead pressing? Is there a history of impingement. If so, what grade?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but the idea of trainers running around giving out SS to everyone sounds like trainers needing to be fired. But I didn't say scrap the program. I said modify it. And if Sentinel wants to suggest an alternative at least he put actual thought and time into it rather than just saying...do this program.

The above assumes I actually do and/or am not aware of these things. I may not be an expert with decades of experience, but don't make the automatic assumption that I'm some complete idiot who doesn't know my ass from a hole in the ground.


What assumptions do I normally make? Well, it's the internet so I assume the basics. I assume you're "healthy" unless you say otherwise. That means no medical conditions and injury status is clear. I also assume you can perform the basic lifts correctly and you're not an idiot, meaning you don't sacrifice form for weight, and you're willing to stick to a program.

If the above assumptions are correct, then yup, begin at the beginning. If not, then speak up and we'll modify. Unfortunately, most people won't admit to a problem, and only a few will admit to being an idiot.

These are big assumptions, especially the last bit, but if I don't assume something then I may as well stop posting. The internet is not the same as talking to and seeing someone in person and watching them perform. You know this.

Anyways, the way I see it, we really only disagree on the very beginning. It was an interesting discussion.

Cheers for now,
Jeff
Jeffo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Bodybuilding Forum > Training


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.