http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/rippetoe_throws_down&cr= great article from Mark Rippetoe.
It is a good article but I think that it is a bit over simplistic. While he does make sense re being able to have a progressive training plan (eg with the ability to test with 1 RM etc) this is not quite so simple to apply to all situations. Maybe he is ignoring the differences between an injured person and a training athlete for some particular reason. I also think that there are ways to progress and strength train when someone is incapable of performing the basic lifts for whatever reason. Still he makes some good points and the article is worth reading. LFD
Prevailing attitudes towards physical training have become needlessly confused and inaccurate in the western world, its basiclly the overarching point of the artical that allot of people from everyday joe's too professional athletes would benfit allot from going back too simplistics. It's a fair point that not everyone is capable of physically training in the most effective way but I can't fault the article for not dwelling on that, its a very specific issue, and doing so would convolute the article and distract from the main argument.
yes it's interesting, but you'd almost be forgiven for thinking he was having a little dig at Westside Barbell, the variety in training program is not to alleviate boredom, but to avoid getting stuck in a limited number of movement patterns, sure you need to focus and learn the main lifts, but plateauing is going to happen, some adaptive submaximal training is necessary to get stronger. Yet as I read more of the article he is kinda endorsing that style of training, the variations of Squat, Bench etc are there to help improve the primary lifts. I get what he says, though see it more in those cardio addicts, same cycle ride, same run, same stepper; as well as a lot of guys who don't squat nor deadlift (which is all kind of weird to me)
I liked the article. The elephant in the room is that for a fair proportion of people that go to a gym, strength is not the objective, it is a secondary byproduct of their exercise (and as a result it doesn't matter that after a degree of gains it becomes static). I would imagine that a large number of people go to a gym to look good (not necessarily the same as looking big) or to improve / maintain their aerobic fitness and some of the things the article criticises are more effective in achieving those goals. I liked this particular passage as I felt it could be applied to excessive variety in martial arts training when seeking to become effective (substituting strength for ability/effectiveness):
Nice article, but I think a lot of people will miss the context - ''If strength is the objective – and it should be for everybody'' ''Likewise, bodyweight-only exercises like sit-ups, push-ups, burpees, air squats, one-legged squats, handstand push-ups, bodyweight dips, exercises done on rings, and kettlebell exercises – any exercise whose loading variable is the number of reps or the length of the set, and which doesn't have a 1RM – can't drive a strength improvement. This is because after about 10 reps, and depending on your bodyweight, they're not limited by your force production ability – they simply become endurance exercises'' Im quite a newbie at this, but if my thinking is right (please correct if not) Strength sessions should be about Primary lifts with good form, not to exhustion Endurance sessions, shouldnt use primary lifts and be more about bodyweight / kettle bells etc Does that sound right?
I wouldn't use weights to improve endurance, endurance comes from how much oxygen you can supply to your working muscles and for how long, it take's cardiovascular training to manipulate the energy systems which effect endurance. As far as building maximal strength your correct about primery lifts, 3x5 is generally considered the foundation, some people do things like increase the sets and decrease the reps from week to week then reset like 3x5,4x4,5x3, but I don't think I'v ever seen a decent coach talking about stregnth training ever recommend doing more than 5 reps of the basic barbell and olympic lifts. It's important to be doing some accessory movements after the primary lifts during strength sessions so muscles dont get weak and become reliant on the muscles used during the major lifts (thats a very simple way of putting it), this is where things like bodyweight exercises and kettlebell's really shine, not when there part of random circuts who's only vague aim seems to be to make you feel like puking because that's most people's idea of a getting fitter feeling, or when there used to try and make real improvements in stregnth (although it can't be denied people in certain circumstances have deffinetlly got yolked without access to much equipment).
Would that be the case if your average gym goer understood what happens when you're lifting a certain way, with knowledge of time, intensity, and frequency and what they entail? If they realized gaining strength doesn't mean "getting big." Here is an example of a guy overhead squatting 418lbs, and I would hardly call him "yoked" or "big" by what the traditional standard and conceptions tend to be currently. I think it's a shame that people think pushing or pulling heavy weight transfers into being "big and nasty looking." I can't imagine anybody's life who wouldn't be made easier (and safer) by getting stronger in the gym. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C66TipKbmoI"]190kg. Overhead Squat for a single (418lbs.) - YouTube[/ame]
I think by endurance you have three different systems to take into consideration. 1) - The rate of Oxygen being taken in, - lung capacity 2) - The rate its being pumped around the body - heart capacity 3) - The rate that the 'energy systems' (nerve transmission, mitocondria etc) can recover from the workload, Metcon if you will. Endurance is really strength over time. Again any correction will be gladly taken.
I think you've misunderstood me. My point was that for a fair proportion of people, getting strong isn't their primary aim. I didn't say that getting strong would make you big, or that getting big would make you strong.
This is a western world problem where many of the idea's about physical training and what an athletic person should look like came from bodybuilding unlike eastern bloc and asain countrys where they came from coaching and sport science focused on Olympic success. Education is they too solve this but like ripptoe say's there are stregnth coaches training proffesional athlete's that don't really have a handle on this stuff so what chance does the layman have.
Not sure about other regions, but the U.S. definitely has a lack of understanding about the rules of exercise and performance ability. I'm enrolled in a "Personalized Health" class currently (horribly basic stuff) and it's interesting to see how strongly they are trying to steer the focus away from a bodybuilding mentality and how to actually train for different goals (and the benefits of each). I also saw a lot of this approach in the ACE PT manual/study material I have for a personal trainer cert. I wonder how much of it is actually being taught to clients though. Maybe when I'm 40 the U.S. will have a general understanding of health/fitness in the gen. pop. : P.
Agreed, crossfit style lifting to failure for time for metcon/endurance just seems like an ideal way to get injuries.
I'm confused over the advice on bodyweight exercises. For instance, if I can't do pullups for 10 reps in a set, will doing this exercise more often lead to me getting stronger or is it the other weight based exercises that will eventually contribute to any improvements in my pullups?
I think it's the point of the article, but as such it is missing the point. Increasing our strength may be beneficial, and the ways he suggests may be the better methods for doing so, but that isn't the primary aim for a fair number of people and he hasn't really argued why people who go to the gym in order to try to achieve a particular body shape or improve their aerobic capacity etc should focus on strength instead.
rippetoe offers advice to get beginners to intermediate stage, for which it is very good, but kinda poo-poos everything else. including methods that apply to completely different things, some of which (strongman, oly lifting, even high-level powerlifting), have people much stronger than rip ever was, and who consistently train people much stronger than rip ever was. wendler put it best. if you take a weight that you can do for, say, 3 reps, and you make it so you can do 8, or 15 reps, you got stronger. period.
