# Why Are You Training Like A Bodybuilder?



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

A statement that I'm reasonably certain is true:

'Traditional bodybuilding programming' significantly outnumbers strength/powerlifting programming in novices or intermediates training for appearence.

My hypothesis on training as well as additional thoughts:

Based on research of the writings of highly venerated coaches with invariable success in regard to adding muscle mass and increasing strength with novices and intermediates (coaches like Mark Rippetoe, Louis Simmons, Dave Tate, Jim Wendler, Bill Starr, Bill Pearl, etc.), I'm under the impression that even for those not training for a powerlifting total, *nearly all recreational lifters would be better served to participate in a strength based program (Westside, Starr's 5x5, 5/3/1, Starting Strength) over a traditional bodybuilding program.* 

I'm defining a strength based program as one that focuses on the major lifts (Squat, Deadlift, Bench Press) with two or so accessory movements per session and some sort of periodization (whether linear or conjugate) and focuses on 'building the lifts'. I'm defining the traditional bodybuilding split that involves five or six (or so) movements per session including movements such as curls, lateral raises and chest flys with a lesser concern for regimented periodization and focuses on 'working the lifts'.

A note: in addition to the major lifts, the Press as well as olympic lifting can (should) be included as well.

A note: I'm not necessarily demonizing curls, lateral raises, and chest flys. However, they typically are far down the list of movements that would be used to "build" the major lifts in nearly all accepted strength programs. 

A note: I recognize that our forum has a periodization sticky. However, I rarely see periodization and rep intensity seriously discussed or scrutinized for those asking for training advice on our forum or nearly any forum except those that are dedicated to strength training. Additionally, I hardly ever see periodization mentioned in our Journals. Although rep ranges are frequently discussed, there is hardly any instruction or discussion regarding how one should manipulate the load for their movements. It seems that it's just accepted that one goes as heavy as they can for the rep range and increases the load when they see fit. Unfortunately, this methodology is an extreme training inefficiency and is the biggest culprit  (in addition to a poor diet and "overtraining") to plateauing in size and strength.

A tangent:  I'm not convinced most people are truly overtraining when they think they are. A thought is that they are likely just utilizing poor programming that puts them in a state similar overtraining -- kind of like a close cousin to overtraining. This is just semantics though and the point is that proper programming will significantly decrease the likelihood of overtraining, by any definition.

I come across many young guys who are ultimately setting out to train for appearance more so than performance. They don't necessarily have plans to get on stage or a platform but would ultimately like to 'get bigger'. These are the overwhelmingly large demographic of guys trying to 'get bigger' in the 5'10" 175lb 16% bodyfat range who squat, bench, deadlift, around the order of 315, 250, 350. These individuals also train like bodybuilders.

A note: In terms of goals, I'm referring to individuals interested in adding a 'significant' amount of muscle mass to their frame, albeit 10 pounds or 50. Even for an individual satisfied with their strength and lean body mass, I believe the strength-based approach is still superior to the traditional bodybuilding approach as it supports an economy of effort, among other things. Is there really a need for lateral raises and direct bicep work if one is not eating at a surplus?

Perhaps once those novice lifters reach an intermediate level of conditioning  then they can shift to a more traditional bodybuilding split in order to work on lagging body parts. I'm defining intermediate as a 'training 1RM' of approximately 500 squat, 500 bench, 315+ bench -- the exact numbers aren't important, perhaps relating the maximums to bodyweight would be more logical. I can't remember what those relations were, but it is something along the lines of squatting 1.5 or 2 times your body weight or something along that order.

It seems like those who achieve strong lifts ends up with the physique, after appropriate dieting, that most novices are looking for.  Simply put, former powerlifters tend to be successful in bodybuilding once they diet down to lower body fat percentages.  Think: Lesser versions of guys like Dave Tate as a modern example and someone like Doug Young from the 70's.

A note about getting fat: For general purposes, the aforementioned coaches expect those who are not attempting to achieve competitively high totals to be reasonably lean. That is, being at 8% year round is not conducive towards significant size and strength gains in most instances, yet maintaining the outline of the abs (or a bit of blurriness) during periods of growth is expected. 

In summary, under what circumstances would a traditional bodybuilding split be preferable over a general strength/powerlifting related approach for beginners/intermediates training for appearance? Is there any merit to these ubiquitous 'bodybuilder' programs? Wouldn't training for strength be a much more effective measure to increase size? In regard to training for overall size, are there any reasons for not 'everyone' basing major lift intensities on 1RMs and then 'building' the major lifts through periodization and appropriate accessory work rather than just 'working' the major lifts a la bodybuilding? Wouldn't specifically striving towards increasing one's 1RMs have the byproduct of increasing size more efficiently than through the bodybuilder programs? Why doesn't everyone (all recreational lifters) just do 5/3/1 or something within that 'genus' (Westside, Bill Starr's 5x5, etc)?

A note: this is all presuming that appropriate dieting considerations are being taken.

A note: I feel like I stole the idea of 'building' vs 'working' the lifts from somebody -- probably somebody at EliteFTS. I want to attribute it to Jim Wendler but it's slipping my mind who said it.

A note: I recall reading in one of Dave Tate's Under the Bar books that he did one of those traditional bodybuilding splits when he was younger. However, if I recall correctly, he was as strong or stronger than that "intermediate" level that I mentioned due to his powerlifting background before briefly getting into bodybuilding. That's the kind of situation that I feel would be an acceptable time to implement a bodybuilding protocol.

A final note: The 'traditional bodybuilding protocol' probably isn't actually _real_. A moderate understanding of bodybuilding history would likely cause one to recognize the influence of guys like Joe Weider (and others) on the inception of this 'modern' version of training. In reality, the 'strength-based' methodology was the only way (with expected variation) for guys to train for size for many years and is still held as the proper way to train for a multitude of the most renowned and successful (in terms of results) coaches.

Those are basically my current thoughts on training. I'm specifically interested in the responses towards my 'summary' questions.

My overall questions is: 
Why are you training like a bodybuilder if strength-based programming is the preferred methodology for increasing size and strength in novices and intermediates?


----------



## Phineas (Sep 7, 2010)

I no longer train in terms of conventional bodybuilding. I do a lot of calf work, but otherwise no isolation. I train purely compounds, all centered around my core lifts (squat, dead, bench, OH press, pullups, rows, cleans).

Now, I'm moving more into powerlifting.

At first I did BB'ing for the looks. Then, it was the challenge of achieving what the body doesn't want -- large amounts of lean muscle mass. I'm still interested in bb'ing as a science and art.


----------



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

I'm not necessarily crusading against isolation movements and programming that is based a bit more on sarcoplasmic growth than myofibrillar growth/improving the neuromuscular connection.  Frankly, movements promoting predominately sarcoplasmic growth are extremely important and is basically a foundation of bodybuilding. 

Bodybuilding movements function very well upon a proper foundation. Although it is possible for a novice  to become big and strong through poor periodization and a bunch of those isolations, a novice can take far better advantage of their "newbie gains" by properly periodizing their main lifts. 

At a certain point, the body will stop readily responding to the main lifts. The biceps will stop growing from indirect pulling and the delts will stop responding from pressing an benching. At that point, isolation movements are a necessity to facilitate growth. 

The issue is that we have 160 pound guys who are trying to slab on 30 pounds of muscle but aren't taking the most efficient paths towards promoting myofibrillar growth and improving neuromuscular connection. 

To get big, one needs to get strong. 

One is not going to get strong with programming that does not match their needs. 

You don't see a lot of guys (if any)with small chests who bench 350. However, there are a ton of novices who post questions about how to increase their chest size and are met with responses about implementing flys and decline presses while they only bench 225. 

To reiterate, bodybuilding programs are fantastic (including the curls, lateral raises, etc. ) when they are properly implemented in a chronological sense. 

The quicker one gets strong, the easier it'll be to get big. 

Even in your particular case, Phineas, there's no shame in direct calf work. If you want bigger calves (or biceps or delts or whatever), they'll require direct work at some point.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 7, 2010)

I want to say in advance i have no evidence to back any of this up. This is just stuff i've been mulling over in my head. It might be bullshit.

Something i've been thinking about lately is work vs perceived work, and it ties in with this pretty well. I think that with such high volumes (3-6 sets of 10-15 reps per exercise) the level of waste products and blood in the muscles actually stops them working as hard as they can.

For example, if i do a few sets of military press at 12 reps, my shoulders get tight from the pump, they burn because of hydrogen ions etc etc. I start to die around halfway through the fourth set. My muscles hurt so much that i stop working hard.

Now i don't have to tell you guys that gaining size isn't just about localized growth of bodyparts. Its also about the overall response from the body as a whole integrated system. Hormones, general adaptation, as well as localized hypertrophy.

Personally, i think heavier low rep training achieves this systemic growth response far more efficiently than higher rep training. For one thing, the reps are usually so low that waste products don't build up so acutely (better overall performance for the session), also achieves maximal fibre and neural recruitment because they're heavy weights, and since the reps ARE so low there is an explosive element in there too, and for another they require a lot more total body activation in terms of stability and nervous stimulations because they're heavier weights. Lighter weights just aren't a challenge to stabilize and don't require a huge neural effort to lift. This is doubly true for inherrantly smaller isolation exercises.

Going back to that waste product thing, i usually find when i train higher volume i have to reduce the weights in later sets, and/or i drop reps too. When i train heavier its not special to increase the weight every set for 5-6 sets, and often keeping the same number of reps every set. Each set seems incredibly tough at the time, but i can keep adding weight. This is obviously going to have a huge effect on muscle growth.

The last point is that this all boils down to the failure thing. Heavier training promotes increasing the weight every set and still ACHIEVING the correct number of reps, or at least stopping before failure so you can increase the weight next set. When you eventually max out or fail, thats it - exercise over. Typical volume/bodybuilding training promotes just the opposite - rep out untill you fail, do another set and fail again, do less weight, fail, waste products, huge stress response because at this point the body is shitting itself. I'm almost convinced that injuries are the ultimate result of this cycle.

Obviously i'm biased to some extent because for the most part i'm not a fan of bodybuilding past the "wow, freaky" shock aspect of it, but going by what has worked for me, my friends, my colleagues, people i've trained, people on this site, and people in my gym......well, the anecdotal evidence backing up heavier non-bodybuilding training is quite huge.

In short, i honestly thing a large basis in heavy, low-rep training with a moderate element of volume/higher rep localized hypertrophy work is optimal if you want maximum size. In this case, periodization of these two elements is absolutely essential.

Time for some milk.


----------



## gtbmed (Sep 7, 2010)

I completely agree with you.  I have always been more interested in powerlifting, olympic lifting, and athletics.

But to me, programs designed with strength in mind are more focused, better founded on research (e.g. Prilepin's table), and well-periodized.

I never responded with more growth than when I was doing Westside.  I believe this was due to the huge amount of posterior chain work that a Westside template demands and the large relative weights that my body was forced to lift during that time.  Even guys at Westside will do isolation movements with small ranges of motion, but those guys are putting in so much work to improve the biggest muscles of their body.  It's no surprise that they're all huge.

In short, lift heavy, do lots of PC work, periodize your training, and eat a lot of food.  That's the best way to grow IMO.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 7, 2010)

gtbmed said:


> It's no surprise that they're all huge.



This is the crux of the matter. I would wager that despite the huge popularity of bodybuilding, there are more "huge" people in powerlifting and strongman than there are in bodybuilding. Especially when you get out of the elite and into the average joe territory.


----------



## Phineas (Sep 7, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> I want to say in advance i have no evidence to back any of this up. This is just stuff i've been mulling over in my head. It might be bullshit.
> 
> Something i've been thinking about lately is work vs perceived work, and it ties in with this pretty well. I think that with such high volumes (3-6 sets of 10-15 reps per exercise) the level of waste products and blood in the muscles actually stops them working as hard as they can.
> 
> ...





I agree. Time for some milk.


----------



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

Oh, I realized I actually fucked up my main point.

First, I just want to define some terms that may help bring clarification. I might have unintentionally interchanged isolation and accessory work in my past posts, but whatever, I'll chock it up to poor editing and clarify it now. When I refer to assistance work, I'm referring to movements that aid in the building (directly contributing to the improvement) of the main lifts. This may include  dumbbell bench presses, dips, pull/chinups, rows, direct tricep work (pulldowns, skull crushers, etc.), hamstring/lower back work (good mornings, GHRs,reverse hyperextensions, etc.), quad work (lunges, split squats, front squats, leg press) or abs (ab wheels, isometric holds, captain's chair work).

Isolation works refers to movements that either are not preferred 'main lift building' movements or simply are used to improve aesthetics. They include stuff like direct bicep work, shoulder work, shrugs, calf work etc. 

Regarding the bolded portion of my first post:

The meaning that I was trying to convey was that nearly all _novice and intermediate_ lifters should primarily focus their efforts on powerlifting principles (i.e focusing on increasing the main lifts through proper periodization and assistance work) before implementing bodybuilding/isolation work .

As mentioned earlier, at some point, one will see diminishing returns from systemic work and will need to employ isolation work in order to achieve further growth. This is why there are plenty of 'light' guys that can squat very high numbers and why 1000lb squaters don't necessarily have 300 pounds of lean body mass.

With practicality in mind, one can employ some isolation work from the beginning of their lifting career --- after all the necessary main lift/accessory work is in --- but it mustn't  impede recovery or result in overtraining. One can probably get away with some bicep or calf work sprinkled here and there.

However, premature  use of the isolation work may make it difficult to determine how responsive one is to a movement. Premature use being defined by implementing  isolation work before the body stops responding to powerlifting movements (i.e main lifts + accessory). Of course, our culture demands instant, maximum response and a large portion of novices seem to put little value towards a long term understanding of their body and would rather see maximum results as soon as possible.

In regard to my statement regarding gauging responsiveness, here's Matt Kroczaleski discussing some very interesting points that tie in a lot of the concepts in this thread:





YouTube Video


----------



## Caretaker (Sep 7, 2010)

While I agree with just about everything posted here, you are all missing WHY guys begin lifting in the first place. The same reason guys pick up a guitar for the first time. They want to get laid. They don`t want to know about science and why they should lift this way as opposed to that way. Or why form is as important(or MORE important) than weight or reps. They just want big arms, chest and shoulders. A lot don`t even do legs until a coach or another guy in the gym mentions it.


----------



## MDR (Sep 7, 2010)

Caretaker said:


> While I agree with just about everything posted here, you are all missing WHY guys begin lifting in the first place. The same reason guys pick up a guitar for the first time. They want to get laid. They don`t want to know about science and why they should lift this way as opposed to that way. Or why form is as important(or MORE important) than weight or reps. They just want big arms, chest and shoulders. A lot don`t even do legs until a coach or another guy in the gym mentions it.



I was a competitive powerlifter for many years, and had no trouble getting laid.  And I'm one ugly S.O.B, so if I can do it, anyone can.  Most women want MEN, not some banana-hammock wearing wanker with a fake tan and all his hair shaved off.  

Also, if you want big arms, chest and shoulders, lift heavy and hard with compound exercises.  Anyone with no legs will get laughed out of any decent powerlifting gym.  Can't pull or squat without legs!  (End of rant).


----------



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

Caretaker said:


> you are all missing WHY guys begin lifting in the first place. *[redacted because a big cock and/or money (literally or figuratively) should be enough to get a random lay from a  'ten' without all the effort of lifting weights]*They don`t want to know about science and why they should lift this way as opposed to that way. Or why form is as important(or MORE important) than weight or reps. They just want big arms, chest and shoulders. A lot don`t even do legs until a coach or another guy in the gym mentions it.




Not only are we not missing that concept, but it's the center of the conversation -- the most effective way to get bigger. The issue about understanding your body is just details that a very large percentage of people won't have to deal with anyways.

Aside from that, you don't need to care why you should periodize or why you shouldn't do tricep kickbacks. The important thing is that you do the work that those who do care about the details recommend should be done.

I'm glad you agree with the principles though, it's nice to have another one join the club.


----------



## Caretaker (Sep 7, 2010)

MDR said:


> I was a competitive powerlifter for many years, and had no trouble getting laid. And I'm one ugly S.O.B, so if I can do it, anyone can. Most women want MEN, not some banana-hammock wearing wanker with a fake tan and all his hair shaved off.
> 
> Also, if you want big arms, chest and shoulders, lift heavy and hard with compound exercises. Anyone with no legs will get laughed out of any decent powerlifting gym. Can't pull or squat without legs! (End of rant).


  Right you are. Most women want men, but a lot of these guys are young ans so are the girls they are after. I too have a powerlifting backround and I mentioned the guitar thing as another example. I always had mor of a powerlifting/football frame than a bodybuilder frame but I was also a semi pro guitar player for many years. And the banana hammock wearing(like that term!!! LOL) David Lee Roth body types got 80% of the women.


----------



## MDR (Sep 7, 2010)

Caretaker said:


> Right you are. Most women want men, but a lot of these guys are young ans so are the girls they are after. I too have a powerlifting backround and I mentioned the guitar thing as another example. I always had mor of a powerlifting/football frame than a bodybuilder frame but I was also a semi pro guitar player for many years. And the banana hammock wearing(like that term!!! LOL) David Lee Roth body types got 80% of the women.



David Lee Roth?  You must be my age.  Isn't he about 65 these days?  In that vein, I'm almost 44, so I am not the guy to ask what young girls like these days.  Probably not old bearded bald fucks like me.  Good thing I'm married, I guess.  I actually get a kick out of bodybuilding and the art and aesthetics of the sport.  But I'd rather be big, strong and powerful any day.


----------



## Caretaker (Sep 7, 2010)

MDR said:


> David Lee Roth? You must be my age. Isn't he about 65 these days? In that vein, I'm almost 44, so I am not the guy to ask what young girls like these days. Probably not old bearded bald fucks like me. Good thing I'm married, I guess. I actually get a kick out of bodybuilding and the art and aesthetics of the sport. But I'd rather be big, strong and powerful any day.


 ....I`m 46, still long hair but balding and a full beard.


----------



## MDR (Sep 7, 2010)

Caretaker said:


> ....I`m 46, still long hair but balding and a full beard.



See, you are a member of the club!  Like it or not!  By the way, I have all the old Van Halen albums on vinyl.  Thanks for bringing back my youth, even if only for a minute.


----------



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

Those albums are probably older than I am but I do have the full beard. Hopefully that gets me an honorary spot.


----------



## Caretaker (Sep 7, 2010)

Marat said:


> Those albums are probably older than I am but I do have the full beard. Hopefully that gets me an honorary spot.


 Nope. LOL. I`ve had the full beard since I was 15. The records too.


----------



## MDR (Sep 7, 2010)

Marat said:


> Those albums are probably older than I am but I do have the full beard. Hopefully that gets me an honorary spot.



Without a doubt.


----------



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

<<-- eastern european, even my mother has a beard. i was basically born with one, old man.


----------



## MDR (Sep 7, 2010)

Marat said:


> <<-- eastern european, even my mother has a beard. i was basically born with one, old man.



I understand-I'm Scandinavian, so I was born very pale with a full beard.


----------



## PushAndPull (Sep 7, 2010)

I agree with this post, except... I completely disagree that a beginner should start out with a 5/3/1 or 5x5 type of routine. They simply lack the experience in lifting to handle that type of weight. Results will likey be discouragement from an enormous amount of DOMs or even worse injury. I also don't believe a strength/power type of routine is even necessary for a begginer since almost any type of routine will surely bring on strength and muscle gains. A beginner would be far better served doing a basic push/pull routine, where he/she could progess in weight as they progess in experience. This will not only help their form in the basic compound lifts but also their confidence. Which they'll need both for a more intense routine such as a 5x5, 5/3/1, or HIT program


----------



## cshea2 (Sep 7, 2010)

Haha, I'm very amused by this post. Such great points. I am in college and I try to tell people in the gym doing 10 sets of side laterals, then cable laterals, and then every type of curl you can imagine is a huge waste of time.

I tell them to squat and pull,l but no one listens. And, yes you will often hear CURLS FOR THE GURLS!! haha, they just don't get it. I'm a sophmore and many of them look the exact same as they did last year! I get annoyed when I hit plateaus, but they don't seem to mind. I came in last year with no real workout experience, one of the smallest guys in the gym. I read up on this site and valued leg training and know I'm one of the biggest. Obviously, there are exceptions the athletes have strength coaches so they know what there doing but other than it's just all about the gun show. I think bodybuilding should only be for people that are approaching their genetic limit or at a very high level of fitness.


----------



## gtbmed (Sep 7, 2010)

PushAndPull said:


> I agree with this post, except... I completely disagree that a beginner should start out with a 5/3/1 or 5x5 type of routine. They simply lack the experience in lifting to handle that type of weight. Results will likey be discouragement from an enormous amount of DOMs or even worse injury. I also don't believe a strength/power type of routine is even necessary for a begginer since almost any type of routine will surely bring on strength and muscle gains. A beginner would be far better served doing a basic push/pull routine, where he/she could progess in weight as they progess in experience. This will not only help their form in the basic compound lifts but also their confidence. Which they'll need both for a more intense routine such as a 5x5, 5/3/1, or HIT program



I don't think 5/3/1 is the ideal program for a noob.  The reason is that you are not working the movements often enough to improve your form and master them.  It is a great, well-designed system, but I think it's better suited to those who are experienced with the lifts involved.

That said, 5x5 or Rippetoe's Starting Strength are incredible for beginners.  In fact I'd probably recommend Starting Strength to almost every beginner, regardless of goals, because it teaches you the most important lifts, teaches you periodization, and teaches you how to design a proper program.


----------



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

PushAndPull said:


> I completely disagree that a beginner should start out with a 5/3/1 or 5x5 type of routine. They simply lack the experience in lifting to handle that type of weight.


Speaking for nearly all strength programs, the intensities are selected based on their training 1RM. The weights are not fixed. 

Here's a Q&A directly from 5/3/1:
Question: Is this program for advanced or beginner lifters? 
Answer: I???ve used this program with both beginning and advanced lifters. Steady, slow progression will never go out of fashion, and neither will the big exercises. The trick is to teach beginners correct form at the start. For advanced lifters, the most important thing is to remember long term goals, and not basing unrealistic maxes on what you did four years ago.



PushAndPull said:


> Results will likey be discouragement from an enormous amount of DOMs or


 Any new resistance change will result in DOMS. Advanced lifters experiences DOMS when making changes too. 



PushAndPull said:


> even worse injury.


I cannot interpret your message behind that concept. Proper programming implies sufficient warmup and appropriate intensities. Additionally, proper form is expected. Anybody will get hurt if any one of those variables is improperly addressed.  


PushAndPull said:


> I also don't believe a strength/power type of routine is even necessary for a begginer since almost any type of routine will surely bring on strength and muscle gains.


 The strength/power type of routine establishes a proper foundation with all the necessary programming variables accounted for (i.e movement selection, rep range, intensity, volume). By properly setting those variables, the novice ensures they are in the position to steadily progress in strength by using eliminating extraneous movements and periodization methods with intensities established by coaches that are renowned across a variety of disciplines. 
Additionally, any sort of resistance training will bring on strength and muscle gains. The most well constructed programming will bring upon the greatest gains -- that is not my thought, that is the consensus of those aforementioned coaches. 


PushAndPull said:


> A beginner would be far better served doing a basic push/pull routine, where he/she could progess in weight as they progess in experience.


Can you please elaborate further on this idea? Although I see whispers of periodization every know and then, the typical push/pull routine that we see here lacks that critical element of proper programming. Doing so contributes to premature plateaus as well as injury and overtraining. Those three concepts are a result of the same thing -- spending too much time with too high of a weight relative to their 1RM. For example, when someone is recommended 5x5 for the major lifts and 3x8 for their accessories/isolations the typical expectation is for them to work with as heavy of a weight that allows them to properly do the movement within that rep range. However, that much volume spent at such a high intensity is counterproductive towards strength gains and therefore size gains. Again, that is not my thought - that is the conclusion after years of trial and error by the founders of training whose principles are taught today. Additionally, appropriate ways of controlling progression include monitoring load increases as well as ability to recover. The amount of time spent training does not necessarily indicate that one will get stronger or recover predictability. 


PushAndPull said:


> This will not only help their form in the basic compound lifts but also their confidence. Which they'll need both for a more intense routine such as a 5x5, 5/3/1, or HIT program



I do not see how the push/pull routine is more constructive to proper form than a strength routine. A novice should be taught form before they pick up any equipment anyways. I'm aware that that's a mild idealization but the reality is that trainees typically mimic those around them and most people's form is laughable. The total years spent training does not necessitate an improvement in form -- if one is not properly taught proper form, they are _probably_ more likely in ingrain poor habits and create compensations than to perform the lifts more efficiently. Especially with Starting Strength, the book describes form in such incredible detail that even a brief skimming would put the trainee ahead of most of their peers. 

Additionally, although I cannot speak for HIT, I'm not sure what makes 5/3/1 or Starting Strength or 5x5 intense in the sense that beginners should not do it.

For example, Westside uses techniques such as 'accommodating resistance' (bands and chains) that isn't necessary for beginners. It is a template created for intermediate to advanced lifters.

However, SS and 5/3/1 are specifically intended to be used by anyone. Especially Starting Strength -- the purpose of the routine is to teach lifters who never lifted a weight before. It's not atypical for lifters get into a 400+ pound raw, unassisted squat before needing to move beyond linear periodization.


----------



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

gtbmed said:


> I don't think 5/3/1 is the ideal program for a noob.  The reason is that you are not working the movements often enough to improve your form and master them.



I'm aware that my post containing the rebuttle to this argument came up after you posted this statement. Nonetheless, I'll reiterate/clarify.

Form improves with time if the lifter is first taught how the proper form in the first place. Resources for learning proper form are scarce. The most common way of learning form is through mimicking other lifters or through getting advice from training partners. Unfortunately, the vast majority of lifters have crap form. That concept of most lifters, even with years of experience, having poor form is consistent across a very large amount of coaches -- hardly (never) have a read that a reputable coach has been satisfied with the state of the lifting public's ability to perform a rep with the greatest reasonable efficiency.

The more common case is that lifters are getting better at developing compensations that allow them to still get stronger. Unfortunately, these compensations fall apart at higher weights. 

Form is learned and solidified using extremely light weight. Only when a load is applied is the efficiency of the load tested. Even a novice trainee can move the bar around all day (hyperbole) without it significantly affecting their recovery -- and if 45lbs is too much, they can use a PVC pipe.

All in all, although 5/3/1 does not go over proper form, it is assumed (and probably explicitly stated) that proper form should be learned. This is standard across all routines, not just strength-based programs.


----------



## Marat (Sep 7, 2010)

Caretaker said:


> [Lifters] don`t want to know about science and why they should lift this way as opposed to that way. Or why form is as important(or MORE important) than weight or reps. They just want big arms, chest and shoulders.





gtbmed said:


> I don't think 5/3/1 is the ideal program for a noob.
> 
> That said, 5x5 or Rippetoe's Starting Strength are incredible for beginners.  In fact I'd probably recommend Starting Strength to almost every beginner, regardless of goals, because it teaches you the most important lifts, teaches you periodization, and teaches you how to design a proper program.



Caretaker's post (accidently) illustrates why 5/3/1 is fantastic. Instead of learning about periodization and detailed explanations on coaching lifts, 5/3/1 simply puts out the end result for those not so interested in studying.

Both are great reads and, bottom line, get the job done. I personally prefer the  Starting Strength book and program over 5/3/1 because of the detail. Nonetheless, dollar bills aside, I'd think that Wendler would have no qualms about recommending Rippetoe's Starting Strength and vice versa.

As a side note: they've actually recently become friendly with each other while Wendler was out pimping 5/3/1. Rippetoe enjoyed Wendler's approach to training. Wendler now sits in on Rippetoe's "round table discussions" every now and then too.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 8, 2010)

I think both programs are excellent. They're the kind of programs that not only give a new lifter a solid base level, but can be used by intermediate and advanced lifters to great effect too in most cases.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 8, 2010)

cshea2 said:


> Haha, I'm very amused by this post. Such great points. I am in college and I try to tell people in the gym doing 10 sets of side laterals, then cable laterals, and then every type of curl you can imagine is a huge waste of time.
> 
> I tell them to squat and pull,l but no one listens. And, yes you will often hear CURLS FOR THE GURLS!! haha, they just don't get it. I'm a sophmore and many of them look the exact same as they did last year! I get annoyed when I hit plateaus, but they don't seem to mind. I came in last year with no real workout experience, one of the smallest guys in the gym. I read up on this site and valued leg training and know I'm one of the biggest. Obviously, there are exceptions the athletes have strength coaches so they know what there doing but other than it's just all about the gun show. I think bodybuilding should only be for people that are approaching their genetic limit or at a very high level of fitness.



And no doubt the "bros" think you're on gear because nobody could possibly outgrow them without it.


----------



## Flathead (Sep 8, 2010)

I pretty much agree with every post on here! With that being said I think we tend to over complicate this whole weight training process. Go "heavy", use as many compound movements as possible, rest, & diet. It's pretty much, that simple. Regardless if your BBing, PLing, or training for strength.

Flathead


----------



## PushAndPull (Sep 8, 2010)

Marat said:


> Speaking for nearly all strength programs, the intensities are selected based on their training 1RM. The weights are not fixed.
> 
> Here's a Q&A directly from 5/3/1:
> Question: Is this program for advanced or beginner lifters?
> Answer: I’ve used this program with both beginning and advanced lifters. Steady, slow progression will never go out of fashion, and neither will the big exercises. The trick is to teach beginners correct form at the start. For advanced lifters, the most important thing is to remember long term goals, and not basing unrealistic maxes on what you did four years ago.



Teaching someone proper form and them mastering it, is two different things. I think teaching a beginner proper form(from a fucking video to boot), then sending them off on their own to try and gauge their 1RM at the gym is crazy.



Marat said:


> Any new resistance change will result in DOMS.



Any new resistance change will not result in the same amount of DOMS.



Marat said:


> Advanced lifters experiences DOMS when making changes too.



The intensity of DOMS experienced by a beginner is not the same as an advanced lifter. 



Marat said:


> I cannot interpret your message behind that concept. Proper programming implies sufficient warmup and appropriate intensities. Additionally, *proper form is expected.* Anybody will get hurt if any one of those variables is improperly addressed.



Proper form cannot be expected from someone who's untrained and going heavy.



Marat said:


> The strength/power type of routine establishes a proper foundation with all the necessary programming variables accounted for (i.e movement selection, rep range, intensity, volume). By properly setting those variables, the novice ensures they are in the position to steadily progress in strength by using eliminating extraneous movements and periodization methods with intensities established by coaches that are renowned across a variety of disciplines.
> Additionally, any sort of resistance training will bring on strength and muscle gains. The most well constructed programming will bring upon the greatest gains -- *that is not my thought, that is the consensus of those aforementioned coaches.*



I don't care what these coaches say, because they won't be training anyone here. Tons of newbies that come here won't even have a personal trainer. They'll have a video, a sticky, and maybe a website/book. What about these "beginners" that these coaches train? Are they really beginners to exercise or just to weight training. They're more than likely athletes who are trying to improve their performance. That is not the same as grabbing a couch potato and training them. No doubt we've seen some couch potato's visit this board looking for advise.  Regardless, most people here are simply not going to have the resources that these coaches provide and base their results off.



Marat said:


> Can you please elaborate further on this idea? Although I see whispers of periodization every know and then, the typical push/pull routine that we see here lacks that critical element of proper programming. *Doing so contributes to premature plateaus as well as injury and overtraining.*



Not from my experience, and others i've trained with. A basic push/pull routine contains exercises for all six planes of motion, not focusing on the "big three". As far as i'm concerned there's the big six. I also think guesstimation of when to move up in weight is fine for a beginner, since the goal of their first routine shouldn't be maximum strength gains. I completely disagee that this will lead to any form of overtraining and plateaus.



Marat said:


> Those three concepts are a result of the same thing -- spending too much time with too high of a weight relative to their 1RM. For example, when someone is recommended 5x5 for the major lifts and 3x8 for their accessories/isolations the typical expectation is for them to work with as heavy of a weight that allows them to properly do the movement within that rep range. However, that much volume spent at such a high intensity is counterproductive towards strength gains and therefore size gains. Again, that is not my thought - that is the conclusion after years of trial and error by the founders of training whose principles are taught today. Additionally, appropriate ways of controlling progression include monitoring load increases as well as ability to recover. *The amount of time spent training does not necessarily indicate that one will get stronger or recover predictability*.



No, but it will give the beginner more time to improve their form and confidence, if done with a moderate amount of weight.



Marat said:


> *I do not see how the push/pull routine is more constructive to proper form than a strength routine*. A novice should be taught form before they pick up any equipment anyways. I'm aware that that's a mild idealization but the reality is that trainees typically mimic those around them and most people's form is laughable. The total years spent training does not necessitate an improvement in form -- if one is not properly taught proper form, they are _probably_ more likely in ingrain poor habits and create compensations than to perform the lifts more efficiently. Especially with Starting Strength, the book describes form in such incredible detail that even a brief skimming would put the trainee ahead of most of their peers.



Simplicity, higher repetition, and less weight. Leading to improved form and confidence.



Marat said:


> Additionally, although I cannot speak for HIT, I'm not sure what makes 5/3/1 or Starting Strength or 5x5 intense in the sense that beginners should not do it.



Someone that doesn't have sufficient experience in the exercises shouldn't be trusted to have good form at heavier weight.




Marat said:


> For example, Westside uses techniques such as 'accommodating resistance' (bands and chains) that isn't necessary for beginners. It is a template created for intermediate to advanced lifters.
> 
> However, SS and 5/3/1 are specifically intended to be used by anyone. Especially Starting Strength -- the purpose of the routine is to teach lifters who never lifted a weight before. It's not atypical for lifters get into a 400+ pound raw, *unassisted squat before needing to move beyond linear periodization.*



Who is going to assist the people that come here asking for advice on any exercise? You gonna fly down there to help them train? No, they're gonna be by themselves. Armed only with a video, sticky, and maybe a book or website. Have you ever taught someone proper squat form who's never squated and isn't much of an athlete? It takes a little bit for them to get it, and that's just using bodyweight. So from there they're now ready to go into the gym alone and test their 1RM? I think advising a handful of compound exercises, using moderate weight, and focusing on their form is better advice for the average beginner who visits this board. If the person comes back after a few months looking for more advice, then I would direct them to some more advanced routines.


----------



## Marat (Sep 8, 2010)

In all honesty, the purpose of this post was to be convinced _against_ the types of routines that I'm advocating. My original post was, overall, a question, it wasn't a statement. I wanted to know why every novice and intermediate isn't training like a "powerlifter". It's one thing if it's ignorance, but it's another if one legitimately has a defense for not training to predominately increase your 1RMs while they are in the novice/intermediate state. 

What's the deal with all of our training stickies? What's the point of designing your own routine? These guys (Wendler, Simmons, Tate, Rippetoe etc) put in dozens of years of work and they spit out 5/3/1, Starting Strength, and Westside. They feel that those are the programs that are best organized to get guys the bigger and stronger. 

Literally yesterday, somebody asked Wendler that if he can start out all over, knowing what he knows now, what program would he do. He answered "what do you think?" and left it at that.

There's no need to design one's own program unless one is interested in figuring out what works on their own. We're lucky though -- guys have been putting work in for years to figure it out. Some of these guys have 20 years of coaching experience, let alone the work they put in on their own.

None of these 'opinions' are actually mine. I'm not making statements based on my experiences -- I'm making statements based on _theirs_. 

So back to the stickies...shouldn't they just read: Go do Starting Strength. I feel like that's the best advice you can give anyone that wants to bigger. For what reason are we spending our time tinkering around with people's routines when a 20 dollar book will straighten everything out immediately?


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 8, 2010)

Who said anything about getting a newbie to do a 1RM test? A 1RM can be estimated from any rep range (within reason). It might not be correct, but it'll still work for a baseline.

I think drilling form is fine, but in my experience drilling form at lower reps is just as beneficial as drilling at higher reps because the amount form drift due to fatigue is reduced.

A 5 rep set is different than a maximal 5 rep set, is all i'm saying. And in a lot of instances lower reps might actually be preferable to keep fatigue low and attention to technique high.

If i had to choose, i would teach technique using 5x5 @ 10RM rather than 3x10 @ 12RM. For the reasons i explained above, and for the reason of making the client feel like they're doing something by putting some weight on the bar.


----------



## PushAndPull (Sep 8, 2010)

Marat said:


> In all honesty, the purpose of this post was to be convinced _against_ the types of routines that I'm advocating. My original post was, overall, a question, it wasn't a statement. I wanted to know why every novice and intermediate isn't training like a "powerlifter". It's one thing if it's ignorance, but it's another if one legitimately has a defense for not training to predominately increase your 1RMs while they are in the novice/intermediate state.
> 
> What's the deal with all of our training stickies? What's the point of designing your own routine? These guys (Wendler, Simmons, Tate, Rippetoe etc) put in dozens of years of work and they spit out 5/3/1, Starting Strength, and Westside. They feel that those are the programs that are best organized to get guys the bigger and stronger.
> 
> ...



We're bored and they're cheap


----------



## PushAndPull (Sep 8, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> I think drilling form is fine, but in my experience drilling form at lower reps is just as beneficial as drilling at higher reps because the amount form drift due to fatigue is reduced.
> 
> A 5 rep set is different than a maximal 5 rep set, is all i'm saying. And in a lot of instances lower reps might actually be preferable to keep fatigue low and attention to technique high.



I think the fatigue experienced at the latter reps is a good thing. The fatigue experienced won't be that intense and anyone who wants to lift heavy must learn to practice form even when fatigued. Although this fatigue won't be as intense as heavier lifting, it's a good practice.



Gazhole said:


> If i had to choose, i would teach technique using 5x5 @ 10RM rather than 3x10 @ 12RM. For the reasons i explained above, and for the reason of making the client feel like they're doing something by putting some weight on the bar.



This is just where you and I disagree.


----------



## Marat (Sep 8, 2010)

PushAndPull said:


> Teaching someone proper form and them mastering it, is two different things.


 I completely agree. However, learning a serviceable level of technique is achievable when the new lifter is exposed to the proper resources. 



PushAndPull said:


> I think teaching a beginner proper form(from a fucking video to boot), then sending them off on their own to try and gauge their 1RM at the gym is crazy.


The preferred way of learning form is certainly through hands-on coaching from someone whose understanding of technique is reasonably strong. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to a great coach and technique is poor across the board among lifters. Those with good technique are the exceptions. Therefore, it's probably preferential one learns form from a Rippetoe book and video than from the mimicry of other gym goers or from a training partner that is unlikely to have a proper grasp on technique themselves. 

In regards to a 1RM: I do understand were your reservations about testing a 1RM come from. However,  a novice is far removed from their absolute strength. Their physiology can handle squatting 165 pounds. Even for a more experienced lifter embarking on a new modality of training, the negative physiological repercussions of testing a 1RM once every four months (as in 5/3/1) or establishing a baseline is not comparable to testing a 1RM with frequency (every week or every month). 



PushAndPull said:


> I don't care what these coaches say, because they won't be training anyone here.


 Who you listen to is certainly you're own prerogative. However, I'm not following the reason behind ignoring their advice. Their information is made available so that lifters who do not have access to them can benefit from their experience. 

Just an aside, if one wants direct access to Rippetoe or Wendler specifically, Rippetoe frequently posts on his forum and Wendler responds to Q&A questions at EliteFTS with very reasonable promptness. 



PushAndPull said:


> Tons of newbies that come here won't even have a personal trainer. They'll have a video, a sticky, and maybe a website/book.


We can only do the best that we can with the limitations that exist. Essentially all we can do is field questions -- that is constant regardless of the programming. 


PushAndPull said:


> What about these "beginners" that these coaches train? Are they really beginners to exercise or just to weight training. They're more than likely athletes who are trying to improve their performance. That is not the same as grabbing a couch potato and training them. No doubt we've seen some couch potato's visit this board looking for advise.


Starting Strength is most directly designed for coaching teenagers. Absolute beginners. 

Just an aside: by Rippetoe's admittance, Starting Strength isn't anything out of the ordinary. It's not really his 'masterpiece' or anything like that. They are not even entirely his own ideas. It all stems from Bulgarian/Eastern Bloc/Russian training. Same thing goes with Westside (a more advanced protocol not intended for novices) and any program that involves periodization.  Starting Strength is the collective work of all those that came before Rippetoe and is ultimately filtered down into core principles that are consistent with a multitude of complete programs. It's simply linear periodization -- there are no secrets or mysteries beyond why it is effective. Basically any logical linear periodization program will yield the same results and basically any linear periodization program will look extremely similar to Starting Strength. 


PushAndPull said:


> Regardless, most people here are simply not going to have the resources that these coaches provide and base their results off.


I urge you to actually read the books. I think you may be over-complicating what the program entails. It's the same linear periodization that is in our stickies. The problem isn't that we don't have the information, the problem is that it's not being applied.   
In Starting Strength, one basically squats, deadlifts, cleans, and benches in the five rep range and then increases weight until they cannot increase weight anymore. Once they cannot increase weight (properly recover) they have 'graduated' from the program. 

After that period, I feel that 5/3/1 is fantastic. It's the same idea: squat, bench, deadlift, press and (if one chooses) clean. The book just sets up programming  (especially periodization) in an organized manner that can be easily modified. 



PushAndPull said:


> I also think guesstimation of when to move up in weight is fine for a beginner, since the goal of their first routine shouldn't be maximum strength gains.


The novice period, however long it may last, permits the greatest gains relative to any other point in a lifter's career. The most efficient and effective programming allows the novice to take advantage of that period to the greatest extent. 




PushAndPull said:


> Simplicity, higher repetition, and less weight. Leading to improved form and confidence.


However, without specific direction for manipulating the load, the lifter is sacrificing the gains that can be made in that novice period. 



PushAndPull said:


> Someone that doesn't have sufficient experience in the exercises shouldn't be trusted to have good form at heavier weight.



Sure, but heavy weight is relative to their absolute strength. No one is going to rupture a pec benching 135x5. 

A caveat: injury can occur at any essentially any load if the lifter isn't probably warmed up. However, an improper warmup protocol lends to an incomplete program.




PushAndPull said:


> Who is going to assist the people that come here asking for advice on any exercise? You gonna fly down there to help them train? No, they're gonna be by themselves. Armed only with a video, sticky, and maybe a book or website. Have you ever taught someone proper squat form who's never squated and isn't much of an athlete? It takes a little bit for them to get it, and that's just using bodyweight. So from there they're now ready to go into the gym alone and test their 1RM? I think advising a handful of compound exercises, using moderate weight, and focusing on their form is better advice for the average beginner who visits this board. If the person comes back after a few months looking for more advice, then I would direct them to some more advanced routines.



PushAndPull, I really do appreciate you taking the time to rebut, it's exactly what I was looking for. However,  if you read the books, I that you'll recognize that Starting Strength and 5/3/1 have very similar principles towards what you believe is ideal for training a novice/intermediate. The major difference being that Starting Strength takes the effort to capitalize on the novice gains.  Frankly, most of us probably cannot recover fast enough to do that program -- it is truly designed for the beginner. Whether the programming lasts for three months or a year or is matter of nutrition, lifestyle, and genetics -- the better the lifter can recover, the longer then can sustain increasing the load before needing to employ more advanced techniques. 

5/3/1 is excellent for the lifter that has left that initial period, even though it can still be used by absolute beginners.


The point isn't that I'm trying to pimp these books and that they contain the secret to training. The same information is held in our stickies. 

The issue is that it I believe it is overwhelming for a novice to try to assimilate all the information needed to assemble a proper warmup, determine intensities/rep ranges/movements, and then figure out progression. Explaining all of this puts a huge burden on us as well -- it's a lot of information to go over with any user. 

We actually do the same thing with our Nutrition section.  Aside from carb cycling, which has less "moving parts" than training, we frequently recommend that lifters read The Ultimate Diet 2.0 or The Rapid Fatloss Handbook. I recognize that those diets are for more 'advanced' dieters, but I think the message still applies -- it's a matter of using the best resources to help lifters succeed

 The message of the books fit very well into the training beliefs of our 'usual posters' with the addition of stressing periodization which I typically do not see stressed here. To reiterate, the benefits of those two training books is in their organization. From warmup to movement selection/reps/ intensity to periodization, the book organizes all the information so that anyone can follow it.  The intention isn't to be lazy --  I just wholeheartedly feel that novices/intermediates would be better served having the information that we normally give them available, with the addition of periodization, in a medium that they can be easily referenced.


Additionally, here's a podcast were Jim Wendler talks about 5/3/1 with the Fitcast people.


----------



## Phineas (Sep 8, 2010)

Marat -- this is a great discussion.

I've been doing some powerlifting the last few months, and am wanting to get more into it. For my next program coming up in about a month I want to do a powerlifting program, or at least one built around getting the major lifts up. I've been looking at Westside and Starr's 5x5, never done either, nor have I done 5/3/1. I'm liking the structure of 5x5, very simple.

What would you suggest?


----------



## PushAndPull (Sep 8, 2010)

Marat, i'm lacking the attention span to continue this discussion.  I did read your last post and agree periodization could in general be stressed more. I often post that link and others for newbies to read, but they rarely do. Nice discussion, but i'm still not buying the book(joke). Anyways I still luv ya


----------



## Marat (Sep 8, 2010)

I'd narrow it down to 5/3/1 and Westside. Westside is the most comprehensive and 5/3/1 has more flexibility than does 5x5. Also, you can get the most feedback from Westside and 5/3/1. 

From there, I recommend reading both books and seeing what fits into your lifestyle and limitations. Westside is very comprehensive -- from starting out to implementing boards, bands and chains, the book has everything. 5/3/1 is significantly simplified but still has a strong Bulgarian influence. 5/3/1 can also be used while cutting or bulking whereas cutting with Westside isn't logical. 

In summary, 5/3/1 sacrifices a bit of performance for convenience. It's still very effective, just not as comprehensive towards powerlifting as Westside.

Also, as with any powerlifting question (or really any question), feel free to ask the people at EliteFTS. The 'Ask the Expert' button is at the bottom -- they usually have a pretty fast turnover. Except with Dave (he's a bit hit or miss), you'll get an answer within a few days. If not, they urge you to repost it again. Ask them about which program they recommend, I'd be happy to hear what they say.


----------



## Phineas (Sep 8, 2010)

Marat said:


> I'd narrow it down to 5/3/1 and Westside. Westside is the most comprehensive and 5/3/1 has more flexibility than does 5x5. Also, you can get the most feedback from Westside and 5/3/1.
> 
> From there, I recommend reading both books and seeing what fits into your lifestyle and limitations. Westside is very comprehensive -- from starting out to implementing boards, bands and chains, the book has everything. 5/3/1 is significantly simplified but still has a strong Bulgarian influence. 5/3/1 can also be used while cutting or bulking whereas cutting with Westside isn't logical.
> 
> ...



Awesome! Thanks!


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 8, 2010)

EliteFTS is my go-to site for strength training info. Its quality. Their products are great, too.

Definitely reccomend a stint of Westside, Phineas. I've done two WS training cycles before and it's one of the few programs i've gotten enough results from (and enjoyed enough) to repeat. I very rarely do that.


----------



## Phineas (Sep 8, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> EliteFTS is my go-to site for strength training info. Its quality. Their products are great, too.
> 
> Definitely reccomend a stint of Westside, Phineas. I've done two WS training cycles before and it's one of the few programs i've gotten enough results from (and enjoyed enough) to repeat. I very rarely do that.



Yeah, I really like the program layout. I like the idea of the dynamic effort sessions. I figure I'm powerlifting every session now, so I might as well apply myself in a more organized manner. I'm currently powerlifting mixed with bodybuilding...sort of. Mostly powerlifting, though.

I've scaled down my volume program considerably for the third and final cycle -- as I'm a month from my half-marathon. It's been odd training for a running race while getting my lifts up and putting on mass. I love the combination. It's been painful, but good. The race is October 10. I'm going to do a 2-week deload beginning a week before the race, then I'll give myself one more week after the race. After that, I'll start straight-up powerlifting.

I haven't trained like a real bodybuilder in almost a year now, anyway. I think I've always been leaning towards a powerlifting mentality, with my focus on heavy compounds and organization of mechanics. I finally got the ball rolling with your conjugate program when I did it a few months back. Then, my volume program had me powerlifting every session.

I'm just obsessed with getting my major lifts up. Last night I had a technical error that screwed up my squats, preventing me from attempting a 5-rep PR and I was pissed off the whole night (I have tight achilies, and use the plates under the hell trick to compensate...usually works wonders but last night I squatted at a different gym and didn't have the usual plates I use so I couldn't get my stance to work. I'm going to measure the height of the plates I normally use and get a board to use instead of plates, though. 2 weeks ago I was robbed a 245 for 5 (15-20 degrees below paralle) PR because the plates under my heels moved about an inch and my form got completely thrown off. A board will be much more stable).


----------



## gtbmed (Sep 8, 2010)

Marat, to me the advantage of SS over 5/3/1 doesn't really have to do with volume but with frequency.  I think a lot of newbies could benefit from doing the main lifts 2-3 times per week.  I really think increased frequency teaches a lifter a lot about technique.  That's just my opinion based on personal opinion though.

PushandPull, I have to respectfully disagree with your point that increased volume and decreased intensity is better for mastering exercise technique.  I think with increased volume comes a certain amount of fatigue.  Even experienced lifters struggle with form in a fatigued state.

Another thing is, to me, the only way to develop a technical mastery of a lift at higher intensities is to do the lift at higher intensities!  You can do 10 rep sets of back squats at 60% of your 1RM and you'll be proficient at that intensity, but if you start loading the weight on the bar your form is going to go to hell.

To Phineas:

A lot of people love Westside.  I experienced some gains on it too, but I think you have to be honest with what you want to get out of it and adjust it from there.  For months I tried to squat Westside-style and, while my low-bar back squat numbers went up, I didn't think my athletic performance was improving all that much.  I switched to a more specific program and did high-bar back squats and I've improved greatly.  I've always said that Westside is a great program for an equipped powerlifter.  For those who are lifting raw or have other aspirations, I think other programs may be better.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 8, 2010)

I also hate low bar squats. I squat high bar position every time.

Also, good luck with your half marathon, Phineas! I never go for PRs in a different gym, haha. Messes you up. The plates can be different weights too.


----------



## Marat (Sep 8, 2010)

gtbmed said:


> Marat, to me the advantage of SS over 5/3/1 doesn't really have to do with volume but with frequency.  I think a lot of newbies could benefit from doing the main lifts 2-3 times per week.  I really think increased frequency teaches a lifter a lot about technique.  That's just my opinion based on personal opinion though.



Yea, glad you included that.  Additionally,  I've noticed a lot of recommendation for keeping sets as doubles or triples while teaching form. Doing so minimizes the technique breakdown that tends to occur at the higher numbered reps.


----------



## Life (Sep 8, 2010)

Lots of good info on this thread. I think it should be stickied for that reason alone, not to mention the philosophical "Why do you train like a bodybuilder" question


----------



## LAM (Sep 8, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> EliteFTS is my go-to site for strength training info. Its quality. Their products are great, too.
> 
> Definitely reccomend a stint of Westside, Phineas. I've done two WS training cycles before and it's one of the few programs i've gotten enough results from (and enjoyed enough) to repeat. I very rarely do that.



ditto to the above a little Westside never hurt anybody!...IMO there are lots of great training systems out there and just about all of them work when you train at high levels of intensity.  shit I think it was like 2009 when I hit 560 raw on the bench with some old ass bench press routine from Ted Arcedi..lol


----------



## Merkaba (Sep 8, 2010)

Great thread!  I generally think along the same lines.


----------



## Hoglander (Sep 8, 2010)

I've skimmed through the thread, not as well as I should have because it is boring. 

I lift 5x5 as a low end.. "I'm here and I at least should lift 5x5" that's my thought process.  I'll throw in a few 1-3 rep max lifts at the end and start with 10s or 15's, depending. 

It depends on the day and the injuries. It turns out that in the way, the way I work around injuries makes me more effective at getting better. I change it up and think, fuck you lower back! Fuck you shoulder! Fuck you knee! 

I guess being older is good for me. I think it's very bad for a novice though. 

The irony for me is that I rediscovered lifting as a way to overcome lower back problems. I've turned that problem into dust. In a way what I have overcome has shaped my entire lifting philosophy. It's something that would be very VERY difficult to put into a package for a novice.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 9, 2010)

LAM said:


> ditto to the above a little Westside never hurt anybody!...IMO there are lots of great training systems out there and just about all of them work when you train at high levels of intensity.  shit I think it was like 2009 when I hit 560 raw on the bench with some old ass bench press routine from Ted Arcedi..lol



 thats a huge bench, nice work. Ted is old school, haha. Makes you wonder how wrestlers these days would fare in powerlifting...


----------



## gtbmed (Sep 9, 2010)

LAM said:


> ditto to the above a little Westside never hurt anybody!...IMO there are lots of great training systems out there and just about all of them work when you train at high levels of intensity.  shit I think it was like 2009 when I hit 560 raw on the bench with some old ass bench press routine from Ted Arcedi..lol



There's nothing magical about a training system.  Sure, for elite athletes, different programming may result in better progress, but to get to that level relies on one thing: hard work.

But people don't want to hear that - they want some magic program that will make them big or strong quickly and won't be too taxing.  They don't realize that big results only accumulate through hard work over time.

BTW amazing lift.


----------



## Marat (Sep 9, 2010)

gtbmed said:


> There's nothing magical about a training system.  Sure, for elite athletes, different programming may result in better progress, but to get to that level relies on one thing: hard work.
> 
> But people don't want to hear that - they want some magic program that will make them big or strong quickly and won't be too taxing.  They don't realize that big results only accumulate through hard work over time.
> 
> BTW amazing lift.



+1 for that


----------



## usafchris (Sep 10, 2010)

> There's nothing magical about a training system. Sure, for elite athletes, different programming may result in better progress, but to get to that level relies on one thing: hard work.
> 
> But people don't want to hear that - they want some magic program that will make them big or strong quickly and won't be too taxing. They don't realize that big results only accumulate through hard work over time.
> 
> BTW amazing lift.



Very true.  Being in my disclosed location I am right now I have had many come up to me and ask me what I do.  I just say I eat right and try to focus on form.  After reading this thread, I think I will take my 4 years of lifting and buy me yet another book.  At 27 I *THOUGHT* I knew a good bit (most of which from this site) but I believe I have mislead myself.  Great thread! Thanks to all.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 10, 2010)

The thing that makes a program great is it' s ability to lay out a framework for you to be able to work as hard as you can without overdoing things. Without this framework a lot of people, especially inexperienced lifters, either slack off and don't work hard enough, or overtrain.

Even experienced lifters need a structured program in order to systematically improve their performance. If you go into the gym every workout without a plan, you will get absolutely nowhere.

Hard work is the big line underneath any program though, no matter the credentials of it's author or the amount of effort put into the design. The best program in the world will only pay dividends in return for sweat, tears, and pain.


----------



## Marat (Sep 10, 2010)

I very much agree with the above post. Good programming is completely useless amidst a poor work ethic.

One can get pretty damn strong with a good work ethic and an average program. It's just going to take more time and more tinkering. 

Fortunately for us, guys like Simmons, Rippetoe, and Wendler already put in the years to figure out what works. It would be foolish to not learn from their mistakes.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 10, 2010)

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Marat again."

I've seen this error far too much because of this thread.


----------



## ygbodybuilder10 (Sep 15, 2010)

I train like a bodybuilder and a powerlifter all in one. all rep ranges, all movements, cables,machines, and free weights


----------



## cshea2 (Sep 15, 2010)

ygbodybuilder10 said:


> I train like a bodybuilder and a powerlifter all in one. all rep ranges, all movements, cables,machines, and free weights



   If you use lots of cables and machines and use all rep ranges you are not training like a powerlifter. Like Marat said, a powerlifter may use minor cable work as assistance for the main lifts, but no machine work really.


----------



## cshea2 (Sep 15, 2010)

Some of the bodybuilders do powerlifting routines in there offseason though. I think more bodybuilders should do this to bulk up, but obviously when they drop carbs there not going to do a powerlifting routine.


----------



## Marat (Sep 15, 2010)

cshea2 said:


> If you use lots of cables and machines and use all rep ranges you are not training like a powerlifter. Like Marat said, a powerlifter may use minor cable work as assistance for the main lifts, but no machine work really.



cshea2, you _are_ essentially accurately paraphrasing what I've said and I do appreciate you helping me defend my stance. However, it is possible that you are missing the overall message.

I'm not interested in separating "bodybuilders" from "powerlifters". I am interested in promoting an understanding of the impact the programming typically associated with the respective 'training paths' have on the body.

Brief examples to help elucidate my point:
 Bicep curls probably won't take 12 inch arms to 16 inch arms as readily as deadlifts and rows will. Similarly, the leg press won't put on overall size as readily as squats will. With that said, if one wants 20 inch arms and exceptional quads, some direct work will very likely be needed. 


In reference to ygbodybuilder10, I very well think that he can train like a bodybuilder and powerlifter simultaneously. The point of my initial post was to have lifters hopefully consider why they train the way they do. I think that for the 'average' lifter (i.e the guy who isn't interesting in being competitive relative to the field on the stage or platform) would be best served to incorporate aspects from both disciplines. Perhaps some lifters will be better served adopting principles more associated with powerlifting and some lifters will be better served adopting principles associated with bodybuilding.

I just think it's foolish to ignore a third of weightlifting (bodybuilding, powerlifting, olympic lifting) because Men's Health draws out an "8 week routine to really blast your biceps" when guys would probably be better served deadlifting. 

Not be be riding anybody, but what I've seen from ygbodybuilder10's occasionally appearances on the forum, he's probably been doing an excellent job harmoniously incorporating both disciplines into his regimen.


----------



## Flathead (Sep 16, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> EliteFTS is my go-to site for strength training info. Its quality. Their products are great, too.
> 
> Definitely reccomend a stint of Westside, Phineas. I've done two WS training cycles before and it's one of the few programs i've gotten enough results from (and enjoyed enough) to repeat. I very rarely do that.


 

+1

Phineas, with the goal being to increase your 1RM, Westside is hard to beat. Especially if you can incorporate some of the band/chain exercises, you'll see additional gains like no other. This program performed to it's fullest, will completely break you off!


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 16, 2010)

Really wanna get some bands. We have home-made chains, but band deadlifts would really help me i think.


----------



## Flathead (Sep 16, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> Really wanna get some bands. We have home-made chains, but band deadlifts would really help me i think.


 

They're a little spendy but worth it. They also work great with squats & bench.

APT Pro Gear - bands powerlifting weight lifting band


----------



## Resolve (Sep 16, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> Really wanna get some bands. We have home-made chains, but band deadlifts would really help me i think.



I picked up some Monster Minis from EFS during their last sale.  Only used them a couple of times so far, but I like them quite a bit for dynamic work.  They're also great for shoulder work - I like face pulls, lateral raises and upright rows more with the bands than with DB or cables.


----------



## Marat (Sep 16, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> Really wanna get some bands.





Resolve said:


> I picked up some Monster Minis from EFS during their last sale.



I'm a fan of bands as well. Got mine from EFS some time ago as well. They seem to put them on sale like six or seven weeks or so but the same product is available from other vendors.

Aside from accommodating resistance, I like them for tricep and core work as well as tractioning some joints.


----------



## cshea2 (Sep 16, 2010)

Marat said:


> cshea2, you _are_ essentially accurately paraphrasing what I've said and I do appreciate you helping me defend my stance. However, it is possible that you are missing the overall message.
> 
> I'm not interested in separating "bodybuilders" from "powerlifters". I am interested in promoting an understanding of the impact the programming typically associated with the respective 'training paths' have on the body.
> 
> ...



   Yah, I see your point. Powerlifting, bodybuilding, oly lifting def have a lot of crossover between them. It just sounded like he was contradicting himself by saying he trains like a powerlifter and bodybuilder all in one with lots of cable/machine work. Now that I look at his post he probably was saying I use different rep ranges and more isolation movements at different times of the year or for different programs, which is a good way to train, IMO.

  This is kind of unrelated, but I always wondered why oly lifters use the high bar squat? Isn't oly lifting just the clean, clean & snatch, and clean & jerk? Wouldn't a low bar squat be more effective in strengthening the posterior chain for these lifts? haha, you have to bare with me as I know very little about oly lifting.


----------



## Marat (Sep 16, 2010)

High bar squats deemphasize the hamstrings and put more emphasis on the quads.

Whether oly lifters, as a whole, squat less than they high squat is up for debate.


----------



## gtbmed (Sep 16, 2010)

Oly lifters squat with a high bar position because that position is closer to what you see in the recovery portion of the snatch and the C&J.  You don't see a lifter with such a bent torso after they've racked/caught the barbell.  They would never be able to remain upright.  In fact, catching the bar too far in front is a reason a lot of lifts are missed.

Plus, high bar squatting develops the proper flexibility to squat clean and squat snatch heavy weights.  A lot of people who do low bar squats could never do a high bar squat because they just haven't developed that specific flexibility.


----------



## ygbodybuilder10 (Sep 17, 2010)

cshea2 said:


> If you use lots of cables and machines and use all rep ranges you are not training like a powerlifter. Like Marat said, a powerlifter may use minor cable work as assistance for the main lifts, but no machine work really.



i use them all, all do heavy free weight movements all the time


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 17, 2010)

Thanks guys! Will definitely pick some up. I found some on Pullum Sports, which is even better since i'll save on shipping  same brand of bands, too!


----------



## Resolve (Sep 17, 2010)

Marat said:


> I'm a fan of bands as well. Got mine from EFS some time ago as well. They seem to put them on sale like six or seven weeks or so but the same product is available from other vendors.
> 
> Aside from accommodating resistance, I like them for tricep and core work as well as tractioning some joints.



I did some banded JM presses today, first time with using them on that particular movement, so I was just sort of testing the waters.  Never have my triceps had such a workout.  Fantastic stuff!


----------



## Marat (Sep 17, 2010)

Ya, great stuff. Tate presses are nice too. Also, get some chains involved as well -- they don't snap back as hard as a band can so that makes them a bit easier to work with.


----------

