Mark Rippetoe Q&A Forum

[EricT]

I'll be curious to know what the "legit" assistance exercises are. But I tell you the attitude that there are maybe 7 total legit exercises in existence really bothers the hell out of me. Just in terms of shoulders alone your looking at some serious imbalances and impingement with that attitude. Ask someone in the know about exercises and injury, in fact, and they will tell you that lack of variety in movement is a PRIME culprit.

It reminds me of the last chapter of PP. Injuries are inevitable kind of thing. Everyone will get an injury at some point but NO injury is "inevitable". It may be damn hard to avoid any particular injury and you certainly can't ever make progress sweating injuries all the time but if you do get a serious one, rest assured it wasn't handed down from the mountain . It's in your training and you caused it. And bangig out the same five exercises month in and out....should make it pretty obvious how it came about.

[_Wolf_]

good post Eric

sometimes, in a way, Chad Waterbury isnt completely full of shit...in the sense that he has criticized the bill starr 5x5 method for not having the right amount of variations. he says that the lack of exercise selection will result in either major imbalances and possible injuries in the long run.

but on the other hand, chad's programs arent that bad. i am referring to his strength building programs - not the shit like ABBH 1 and ABBH 2, etc... what i would like to say however is that while Chad's principles are sound (like strength oriented training, more exercise selection, high frequency training, etc) one huge drawback of all of his strength oriented programs is lack of flexibility in the sense that once u complete those 4 weeks of that program, its tough to progress on and u cant even change it up without completely basterdizing the original program.

but what i have found with his training is that if u use some of the stuff he writes and put it together in a completely different program, it could work wonders.

[Riddick2112]

^^^^^^ agreed. i doubt I would ever try one of his routines or programs as written but he has some very cool ideas that can be incorporated into another program.
a few months back i tried his "10 sets of 3" on chins (I added a set per chinning session until i got to 10) while working Rip's SS program. it was brutal but my back and arms thanked me for it

Rip definitely seems to poo-poo BBers and BBing training altogether. in some ways i cant say I blame him because so much of what is accepted as BBing training is utter nonsense but fact is a pretty good percentage of guys training in the gym are doing so simply to get bigger and stronger for the sake of it, not for sports.

[EricT]

Some very good points made!

You know lots of people have many good ideas on the surface but fail to execute those ideas well from a programming perspective.

The thing about variety as it applies to typical bb'rs is that the variety is there both for the "sake of variety" meaning variety in itself is some prerequisite for growth OR the variety is there in the interest of 1001 isolation to "target" one little muscle. That would be something Rip would probably criticize and be right on the money in doing so.

That is not the kind of variety I am talking about. I am talking about variety for the sole purpose of either preventing or correcting imbalances...much like Anuj pointed out about Waterbury's programs. It is done from a functional perspective and not from a "bodypart" perspective.

I agree completely that people should be aware of the target audience of the programs they contemplate but it doesn't matter if it's just to get bigger and stronger or for sports if your training is unbalanced in the long run. Unfortunately what we have been taught about balanced programs for the most part is BS. Lots of us think, based on what we know, that what we are doing is balanced, and yet we get lots of injuries and setbacks (on average).

The problem with Waterbury as I see it, btw, is that he is all about the details but doesn't have the big picture. I've said before that is is always better to start from the broader perpective...the general, and from there focus in to the details. NOT the other way around.

Anuj made a very valid point in that regard because he basically looked at the big picture first. How can I progress? And while the details may be facinating they don't help you after your alloted time is up. But this is the way these guys make themselves seem indispensable to those who don't know better. Basically the line is "here is a program for you to do X amount of time and meanwhile stay tuned for the next one".

[_Wolf_]

Eric, excellent post. i have nothing to add to that. u have said it perfectly. same with Riddick (a very knowledgeable guy i notice from his posts especially in the texas method thread)

once again, cool post Eric

[EricT]

You know the whole thing with PP and all this is the idea that the fastest possible progress is always the best. But there are two different things to consider. The FASTEST and the most SUSTAINABLE.

I've made the argument on several occasions that the fastest way to progress is not necessarily always the best. For several reasons. One is that the fastest way to progress is the most likely to result in injury. Two, the quicker strength is gained the easier it is to lose. Three, the fastest way is the least sustainable way which results in the most disruption in training and the most complicated programming over the long term. Four, the progress that can be sustained the longest simply results, in the long term, with the most progress, due to all of the reasons stated above.

Is this always true or desirable, no. Nothing is ever cut and dry but there are always things to consider and learn.

Something Riddick said actually made me want to say this. It's something I've always considered as important. People like to say that, for example, Starting Strength is best for everyone. I've even been quilty of that and I've found myself criticizing programs because they would not provide the fastest possible mode of progress. But if your are not a professinal athlete it may not be and there are simply MANY reasons why it would not always be the best to gain this way. That is not to say that it is not well thought out. Since the ideas about beginners, intermediates, and advanced are very good at keeping people from misunderstanding various stages of training. Without these ideas a guy who reached plateaus on a workout to workout basis might go to some extreme measures to continue progression and end up severely messing up. But even not I see from the various comments that people are not able to separate PROGRAMS from THEORIES all the time.

I've been looking for someone who has written something on this and I found an article by Charles Stahley which I think is a very good counterpoint. I'm going to include it here but it is not to ignite a bunch of controversy or to try to beat down RIP. It is just to present another side of the coin. EVERYTHING should be countered and thought through. Never except things blindly. Yes sometime people engage in useless overanalysis and that results in stoppage but the other end of that is excepting the word of on or two people as gospel and never questioning it. Certain things that are great in some ways can be bad in others.

[EricT]

Here is the link to the article. I don't want to copy it out and hyjack the thread in that way.

The Law of Sustainable Progress

[Riddick2112]

i finally got around to reading that, great article!

as is usually the case you bring up a lot of valid points about programming, the pitfalls of the "one size fits all" approach, etc etc.

i have a really good book on Figure drawing (I'm an artist) and the author mentions several times in the book that it is always best to start out with the general and work to the smaller then the smaller to the smallest. It got me thinking that not only does it apply to training as you pointed out, and to art as he pointed out, but to all things in life really. Sometimes we all get so caught up in the minutia of it all that we lose sight of the bigger picture and end up losing our way. I think with training that is a huge problem with a lot of people. I may have mentioned it before, but Mike mentzer was the first one that got me thinking about fundamentals (the general) and i feel that was the primary attraction to his "Heavy Duty" theory for me. I now disagree with a good number of his fundamentals but the concept of the need for valid basic principals remains.

Mike always touted critical thinking and using ones own judgement, and ironcially, when I did finally, truly follow that credo regarding my training, his "theory" was the first to go, lol!

I think if it all boils down to one thing, it's about adaptation and there are a zillion different ways to keep that going. to say only one set to failure is the BEST way, 5 sets of 5 is the BEST way, or to say 20 sets for bis is the BEST way is nonsense. Sooner or later you'd either adapt OR overtrain from them and you'd need a change. this is why stuff from Waterbury and Mentzer and Darden and Tate and Starr and Rip can all be useful if you have the programming knowledge to apply it to your unique situation.
but as Madcow says, knowing what to do and when to do it is the "art" of training!

anyway, this is a great thread, much food for thought here . . .

and speaking of food, I'm hungry!!!

[_Wolf_]

updates from Strengthmill.net

Row Substitution

Originally Posted by Dave(DBD)

Hey Rip, I was just wondering about your opinion on the substitution of Rows on Starting Strength. From what I've seen its bar far the most common sub I've seen on SS. I personally used pendlay rows instead of cleans and I know it worked well for me. I was just curious to hear your opinion on it.

Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe

My opinion is that you need to learn how to clean. There are a couple of reasons why cleans might not be used: if your gym won't allow you do them, or an injury prevents your racking the bar on your shoulders, you'll have to sub something for them. The injury angle is legit, but if the gym won't let you clean but will let you row, well, somebody needs to explain that to me.

Usually, people just feel intimidated by anything that resembles a technical exercise and just would rather not do them. This is just being a pussy, and sets a bad precedent for the management of both training and life. I think the Starting Strength includes an understandable method for learning to power clean, and just in case it's not simple enough I rewrote it for the new book so that it is even simpler. You don't really need bumper plates to do them if you don't have access, so that doesn't wash either. They are in the program because an explosive movement is a valuable contribution to power production, and they make deadlifts get stronger faster.

So my advice is to learn how to power clean. And since you mentioned it, Glenn did not actually invent the barbell row. I don't think he ever said that he did. The standard way to do barbell rows is to pull each rep off the ground. So the actual name of a barbell row should henceforth be "Barbell Row". Please try to remember this.

Rip

[EricT]

I still don't think this addresses the confusion about rows. If Rip is simply talking about a deloaded parallel row that is NOT the same row that has the Pendley or JS monicker. A deloaded parallel row is still not necessarily the "power" version of it that the "Pendley" one is supposed to be by utilyzing upper back flexion and violent extension. This is what needs to be addressed not just row substitution in general. Because this is more likely to cause problems with the general audience rather than them being a "pussy" and not doing power cleans.

That question is answered in my mind and I don't really do JS rows very much anymore since not doing them cured the upper back strain (since they caused it ). That is I don't do the version that says you are supposed to round the mid back before you arch it. A lot of people do Pendley's as a deweighted parallel row done quickly. Really fast really fast. Personally I have never once thought that a barbell row was not done parallel and always thought that people did it higher as another version or simply because they couldn't get low. As far as doing it fast it's OK but I wouldn't do all my rows fast. There is more to a row than just "activating" as many lat fibers as possible.

The power clean is just one "trick up someone's sleeve". There are lot's of tricks. Making a big huge deal about one exercise to me just shows you need more tricks in your bag because people get massively strong without doing OL lifts all the time. They may be a good way but they are not the only way.

Frankly I think people overemphasize rows who can barely do pullups and I really don't like rows being the standard way to customize the SS programs. And I agree that PC's will probably reap huge benefits. But there are other reasons to do rows then just pure progression or getting you DL's up. I think a lot of people trying to instruct themselves on cleans before ever doing rows may end up being bad at certain things, such as scapular retraction.