Mark Rippetoe Success Story

Training
101

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Sento, I appreciate the way you’re presenting your points and I respect your opinions as a coach. Just wanted to put that out there.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
It is not an insult to say that even though someone might be an expert in one specific aspect of a subject they may be a poor choice for a different aspect. Podiatrists and gastroenterologists are both MD’s, but I highly doubt the podiatrist would be offended if someone didn’t pick them to diagnose stomach issues. Why get so upset when someone points out that Rippetoe is a poor choice for a bodybuilding coach?[/quote]
Let’s say I’m studying to be a podiatrist and I learn about Dr. Rip, an internationally-respected podiatrist that my professors agree is one of the best around. Then I start seeing press releases and newspaper ads where people attack Dr. Rip because they did go to him for an upset stomach and they weren’t happy with the results, or they’re saying Dr. Rip shouldn’t be practicing medicine at all, even though they’ve never been to him, no one in their family has been to him, and none of their friends have been to him.

When they also start saying that anyone who follows Dr. Rip’s advice on foot care, toenail trimming, and shoe choice will end up having their feet fall off, I think I’m valid in being frustrated and speaking up about the problems with that line of thinking.

I may’ve taken that analogy on a bit of a tangent. In any case, I do think it’s safe to sum this thread up as… different coaches have different methods and points of view. If a lifter misapplies a given program, it’s not necessarily the fault of the coach or the program.[/quote]

I think this whole argument has been taken out of context. Am I wrong by saying that some SS supporters view SS as validation of the big three lifts? And to some extent validation of power lifting as better than body-part split training? That is the case I see being made.

102

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
I think this whole argument has been taken out of context. Am wrong by saying that some SS supporters view SS as validation of the big three lifts? And to some extent validation of power lifting as better than body-part split training? That is the case I see being made.
[/quote]

I do think that is a good point.

I like SS as it validates the importance of the big three lifts, and provides a decent progression schedule for a beginner, with clear instructions for when and how to deload. However, I don’t like SS in that it’s incomplete for physique goals; it ignores certain body parts, it lacks any focus on balanced development, and it ignores hypertrophy altogether in the programming.

Now, it does seem like almost everyone who’s big today and has an impressive physique, at least spent a couple months of their life building a good foundation of strength in the big three lifts. Even looking back through the last 50ish years, this seems to have been a pretty regular trend.

103

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Speaking of Rip, as far as I know he has become a running gag on Pendlay’s forum. Apparently, he recommended at some point (still is?) that olympic weightlifters should squat low bar+hip drive instead of the common high-bar+upright style.

Not sure if he actually did make that recommendation, but if true he is indeed a joke.

Hope this is helpful info…haha [/quote]

Unfortunately US olympic lifters are also a joke :frowning:

“But if you’re doing any style squat with 800 pounds, you’re strong, and strength is the objective, not style.”
-Mark Rippetoe

So… whatever it is they’re doing, high-bar squats or otherwise, doesn’t seem to be getting them to the top of the heap.

104

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
I find it funny that you lump everyone that disagrees with SS as a brotard. I’m always amazed at how defensive people are of SS. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.
[/quote]

Nice strawman argument, douchebag. I used the word brotard exactly once in this thread, in a post about the mob mentality attacking SS without doing any sort of thinking for themselves. They don’t seem to be capable of anything other than first order thinking of “herp derp I didn’t get cannonball delts from SS in 4 months, it sux yo”. Completely ignoring the strength foundation that will allow them to illict a greater hypertrophy response when they switch programs.

You also didn’t address why if your methods are so awesome, you barely look like you lift after 3 years of training? Not at all “aesthetically pleasing”

105

[quote]LoRez wrote:

I like SS as it validates the importance of the big three lifts, and provides a decent progression schedule for a beginner, with clear instructions for when and how to deload. However, I don’t like SS in that it’s incomplete for physique goals; it ignores certain body parts, it lacks any focus on balanced development, and it ignores hypertrophy altogether in the programming.

Now, it does seem like almost everyone who’s big today and has an impressive physique, at least spent a couple months of their life building a good foundation of strength in the big three lifts. Even looking back through the last 50ish years, this seems to have been a pretty regular trend.[/quote]

This should be emphasized. My post on another thread about SS sums up my thoughts on it. I’ll just quote it here since I’m too lazy to retype it:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
So you’re saying that big compound movements shouldn’t be the focus of a beginning bodybuilder, and really just make people fat? You are also claiming that even though a guy gets a shitload stronger performing these movements, it will not help him one iota when he begins to focus on building an “aesthetically pleasing (LOL)” physique?

So you mean to tell me that a guy that has built his squat up to 315 for 3x5, will be WORSE off when he starts performing more work in the “bodybuilding range” of 8-12 reps with say, 275 on his back, as opposed to the guy squatting 165 for 8-12?

A guy that has built his deadlift up to 350, will be unable to illicit MORE back development from exercises that have carryover from the deadlift, such as rows, when he is doing those exercises HEAVIER than the guy that has been doing Arnold’s body part split for the past 4 months?

We are talking FOUR FUCKING MONTHS here to build a base of strength that will have very real carryover to performing your precious parlor trick bodybuilding movements. If you don’t think the guy that has built up his GPP to handle heavier weights when he starts doing those movements will have better results than a guy that cant, well then I don’t know what to tell you.
[/quote]

No shit SS is not adequate if you have goals of stepping up on stage in 4-6 months. What fucking program will take you from zero to Mr. Olympia in 6 months? None.

People that seem so eager to bash SS completely ignore the fact that it allows one to get stronger at lifts that have very real carryover to bodybuilding hyertrophy. Strong OHP will allow you to see greater delt development, strong deadlift will carryover to back execises, bench for chest, squat for legs.

The arguments I’ve seen make it seem like pressing the pink DB’s, as long as its in the right hypertrophy range and split up in a BB routine throghout the week, will give someone the “aesthetically pleasing (LOL)” physiques they are looking for.

It is four fucking months. FOUR. FUCKING. MONTHS. If you even remotely believe that focusing on strength for FOUR. FUCKING. MONTHS will impede your long term goals of having other men drool over you while you stand in front of them flexing your purty muscles, you are so far off the reservation that you and I have absolutely no chance of seeing eye to eye. I certainly wouldn’t want to sit down and have a beer with you.

At this point I’m just convinced that people bash SS because its hard, and getting strong as hell is just as lot more difficult than grabbing the 25’s and busting out some Flys while your bros shout words of encouragement into your ear.

It would be way different if all these guys had physiques that actually look like they lift with a shirt on (or even without as some of these avatars would indicate) but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

106

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Sento, I appreciate the way you’re presenting your points and I respect your opinions as a coach. Just wanted to put that out there.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
It is not an insult to say that even though someone might be an expert in one specific aspect of a subject they may be a poor choice for a different aspect. Podiatrists and gastroenterologists are both MD’s, but I highly doubt the podiatrist would be offended if someone didn’t pick them to diagnose stomach issues. Why get so upset when someone points out that Rippetoe is a poor choice for a bodybuilding coach?[/quote]
Let’s say I’m studying to be a podiatrist and I learn about Dr. Rip, an internationally-respected podiatrist that my professors agree is one of the best around. Then I start seeing press releases and newspaper ads where people attack Dr. Rip because they did go to him for an upset stomach and they weren’t happy with the results, or they’re saying Dr. Rip shouldn’t be practicing medicine at all, even though they’ve never been to him, no one in their family has been to him, and none of their friends have been to him.

When they also start saying that anyone who follows Dr. Rip’s advice on foot care, toenail trimming, and shoe choice will end up having their feet fall off, I think I’m valid in being frustrated and speaking up about the problems with that line of thinking.

I may’ve taken that analogy on a bit of a tangent. In any case, I do think it’s safe to sum this thread up as… different coaches have different methods and points of view. If a lifter misapplies a given program, it’s not necessarily the fault of the coach or the program.[/quote]

Thanks Chris, and I respect you standing up for someone who you respect, even in the face over seemingly overwhelming odds. :slight_smile:

Your analogy is a good one and I think that anyone who would slander Rip (or anyone really) due to misusing their advice would be in the wrong and that the blame for their results (or lack of them) cannot be pinned on the advice giver.

That said, you and I as coaches also realize that we really shouldn’t be giving advice on subjects that we are not qualified to speak on/are not our area of specialization. We can of course give general guidelines, but (if we are being honest with ourselves and our clients) we do not pretend that we are experts in those other areas and would most likely refer clients to people that we do consider to be experts. The problems arise when people do not make this distinction or have the humility to admit that they are not experts in every related area of their specialty.

Now I’m not specifically saying that Rippetoe is doing this in regards to bodybuilding (though, suggesting that SS is the best program for a beginner bodybuilder does border on that), but I would actually say he is guilty of it in terms of Olympic weightlifting. I say this regards to his suggestion that he knows better than decades of successful Oly coaches and that Oly lifters should perform low bar hip dominat squats rather than high bar Oly style squats, even though he himself never competed at a high level in Oly lifting and to the best of my knowledge none of his trainees have set any records either.

I’m all for thinking outside of the box and all, but you have to admit that this statement comes across in a very arrogant “know it all” way. That is IMO the source off all the strong dislike for him and his programs around the web.

107

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Speaking of Rip, as far as I know he has become a running gag on Pendlay’s forum. Apparently, he recommended at some point (still is?) that olympic weightlifters should squat low bar+hip drive instead of the common high-bar+upright style.

Not sure if he actually did make that recommendation, but if true he is indeed a joke.

Hope this is helpful info…haha [/quote]

Unfortunately US olympic lifters are also a joke :frowning:

“But if you’re doing any style squat with 800 pounds, you’re strong, and strength is the objective, not style.”
-Mark Rippetoe

So… whatever it is they’re doing, high-bar squats or otherwise, doesn’t seem to be getting them to the top of the heap.[/quote]

Come on, I hope you don’t agree with his drivel.

108

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
I find it funny that you lump everyone that disagrees with SS as a brotard. I’m always amazed at how defensive people are of SS. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.
[/quote]

Nice strawman argument, douchebag. I used the word brotard exactly once in this thread, in a post about the mob mentality attacking SS without doing any sort of thinking for themselves. They don’t seem to be capable of anything other than first order thinking of “herp derp I didn’t get cannonball delts from SS in 4 months, it sux yo”. Completely ignoring the strength foundation that will allow them to illict a greater hypertrophy response when they switch programs.

You also didn’t address why if your methods are so awesome, you barely look like you lift after 3 years of training? Not at all “aesthetically pleasing”[/quote]

Using the word “strawman” to do defend your stance is nothing new here at T-Nation. And yet you use it improperly. So your argument is little to no strength gains will be seen on higher rep bb splits?

Actually, I have been fairly fat for the aesthetics crowd. And 68 lbs gained over 3 years and never breaking 20% body fat in most cases would be deemed as progress. I’m sincerly flattered by your attention to my body and progress. Either your steroid use or overly tight inzer squat suit may have given you a serious case of the dreaded condition know as ‘teh ghey’. I have to say, I dont swing that way broski!

109

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
I find it funny that you lump everyone that disagrees with SS as a brotard. I’m always amazed at how defensive people are of SS. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.
[/quote]

Nice strawman argument, douchebag. I used the word brotard exactly once in this thread, in a post about the mob mentality attacking SS without doing any sort of thinking for themselves. They don’t seem to be capable of anything other than first order thinking of “herp derp I didn’t get cannonball delts from SS in 4 months, it sux yo”. Completely ignoring the strength foundation that will allow them to illict a greater hypertrophy response when they switch programs.

You also didn’t address why if your methods are so awesome, you barely look like you lift after 3 years of training? Not at all “aesthetically pleasing”[/quote]

Using the word “strawman” to do defend your stance is nothing new here at T-Nation. And yet you use it improperly. So your argument is little to no strength gains will be seen on higher rep bb splits?

Actually, I have been fairly fat for the aesthetics crowd. And 68 lbs gained over 3 years and never breaking 20% body fat in most cases would be deemed as progress. I’m sincerly flattered by your attention to my body and progress. Either your steroid use or overly tight inzer squat suit may have given you a serious case of the dreaded condition know as ‘teh ghey’. I have to say, I dont swing that way broski!
[/quote]

Strawman: To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You claimed that I called everyone a brotard that disagrees with Starting Strength. you were making up an argument to refute that was not made. If it looks like a strawman, and sounds like a strawman…

Don’t flatter yourself, I could get way better gay guys than you. I compete in drug tested federations, don’t use steroids, and have never put on a squat suit (the word you may be looking for is SINGLET and it is Metal, not Inzer). Next time you go all Nancy Drew, you might want to do better research.

110

^^LOL.

OWNED.

111

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

I like SS as it validates the importance of the big three lifts, and provides a decent progression schedule for a beginner, with clear instructions for when and how to deload. However, I don’t like SS in that it’s incomplete for physique goals; it ignores certain body parts, it lacks any focus on balanced development, and it ignores hypertrophy altogether in the programming.

Now, it does seem like almost everyone who’s big today and has an impressive physique, at least spent a couple months of their life building a good foundation of strength in the big three lifts. Even looking back through the last 50ish years, this seems to have been a pretty regular trend.[/quote]

This should be emphasized. My post on another thread about SS sums up my thoughts on it. I’ll just quote it here since I’m too lazy to retype it:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
So you’re saying that big compound movements shouldn’t be the focus of a beginning bodybuilder, and really just make people fat? You are also claiming that even though a guy gets a shitload stronger performing these movements, it will not help him one iota when he begins to focus on building an “aesthetically pleasing (LOL)” physique?

So you mean to tell me that a guy that has built his squat up to 315 for 3x5, will be WORSE off when he starts performing more work in the “bodybuilding range” of 8-12 reps with say, 275 on his back, as opposed to the guy squatting 165 for 8-12?

A guy that has built his deadlift up to 350, will be unable to illicit MORE back development from exercises that have carryover from the deadlift, such as rows, when he is doing those exercises HEAVIER than the guy that has been doing Arnold’s body part split for the past 4 months?

We are talking FOUR FUCKING MONTHS here to build a base of strength that will have very real carryover to performing your precious parlor trick bodybuilding movements. If you don’t think the guy that has built up his GPP to handle heavier weights when he starts doing those movements will have better results than a guy that cant, well then I don’t know what to tell you.
[/quote]

No shit SS is not adequate if you have goals of stepping up on stage in 4-6 months. What fucking program will take you from zero to Mr. Olympia in 6 months? None.

People that seem so eager to bash SS completely ignore the fact that it allows one to get stronger at lifts that have very real carryover to bodybuilding hyertrophy. Strong OHP will allow you to see greater delt development, strong deadlift will carryover to back execises, bench for chest, squat for legs.

The arguments I’ve seen make it seem like pressing the pink DB’s, as long as its in the right hypertrophy range and split up in a BB routine throghout the week, will give someone the “aesthetically pleasing (LOL)” physiques they are looking for.

It is four fucking months. FOUR. FUCKING. MONTHS. If you even remotely believe that focusing on strength for FOUR. FUCKING. MONTHS will impede your long term goals of having other men drool over you while you stand in front of them flexing your purty muscles, you are so far off the reservation that you and I have absolutely no chance of seeing eye to eye. I certainly wouldn’t want to sit down and have a beer with you.

At this point I’m just convinced that people bash SS because its hard, and getting strong as hell is just as lot more difficult than grabbing the 25’s and busting out some Flys while your bros shout words of encouragement into your ear.

It would be way different if all these guys had physiques that actually look like they lift with a shirt on (or even without as some of these avatars would indicate) but that doesn’t appear to be the case. [/quote]

Other than OP, and maybe a couple others, you are arguing with small people.
They can’t and won’t understand with out doing, and they simply, don’t.
I’m gonna call outliers 15% each direction of the spread, I include OP in the outliers, because he is clearly outside of the 70%, or maybe he’s not and has plateaued, I don’t know but I’m certain he can tell us and that I can not.

70% minimum, speaking from my experience, of men would stave of initial hypertrophy plateaus longer by focusing almost all their efforts in multi-joint lifting.
I can’t even believe that is controversial to state, but please go actually do and then tell me I’m wrong, I’ve done.
You can get so much farther with your triceps if you do all pressing till that doesn’t work any more and THEN do the reverse kickbacks or whatever.

If all of you complaining about this are the same ones that say genetics matter more than drugs, I’d like to let you in on a secret, everyone you’ve been taking advice from is biologically WAY more different too you than any genetic outlier so much so that they more closely resemble the biochemistry of a gorilla than that of a human.
Keep taking your training advice from the enhanced, I’d get enhanced, I mean that’s logical right, their blood is not like yours make it so.

But, please cease talking hypertrophy smack at sub 200, I mean sub 200 how do you look at your penis?
Do women laugh at your ab flexing to your face?

112

If the goal is to get bigger/stronger and look better, I honestly see no reason for a beginner to do SS when they could start off with an intelligently designed 4 day body part split with 2 exercises per body part, using a lower rep range like 4-8 for compounds and 8-12 for isolations. I’m inclined to believe they’d gain just as much strength on their big lifts, gain more muscle overall from actually training all body parts directly, gain less fat from doing more volume and ultimately end up looking better.

113

[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
If the goal is to get bigger/stronger and look better, I honestly see no reason for a beginner to do SS when they could start off with an intelligently designed 4 day body part split with 2 exercises per body part, using a lower rep range like 4-8 for compounds and 8-12 for isolations. I’m inclined to believe they’d gain just as much strength on their big lifts, gain more muscle overall from actually training all body parts directly, gain less fat from doing more volume and ultimately end up looking better.

[/quote]
You sir are the outliers of outliers, congratulations on your parent choice, my complements.
In my experience the reason that what you suggest is not optimal,(notice I said optimal), for most is that hypertrophy plateaus are quickly, (1-2 years ish), acquired without programming, drugs or genetics, to surpass them.

114

I did SS when I first started lifting and stalled after a few months. During that time, my squat went through the roof while all my other lifts didn’t go up nearly as much. I ended up with a T-rex physique: small arms and big quads. I did gain a good amount of muscle, but probably even more fat. I guess SS is fine to follow until you get a 1.5x bodyweight squat, but after that, if you keep going, you well get really imbalanced.

115

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
I find it funny that you lump everyone that disagrees with SS as a brotard. I’m always amazed at how defensive people are of SS. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.
[/quote]

Nice strawman argument, douchebag. I used the word brotard exactly once in this thread, in a post about the mob mentality attacking SS without doing any sort of thinking for themselves. They don’t seem to be capable of anything other than first order thinking of “herp derp I didn’t get cannonball delts from SS in 4 months, it sux yo”. Completely ignoring the strength foundation that will allow them to illict a greater hypertrophy response when they switch programs.

You also didn’t address why if your methods are so awesome, you barely look like you lift after 3 years of training? Not at all “aesthetically pleasing”[/quote]

Using the word “strawman” to do defend your stance is nothing new here at T-Nation. And yet you use it improperly. So your argument is little to no strength gains will be seen on higher rep bb splits?

Actually, I have been fairly fat for the aesthetics crowd. And 68 lbs gained over 3 years and never breaking 20% body fat in most cases would be deemed as progress. I’m sincerly flattered by your attention to my body and progress. Either your steroid use or overly tight inzer squat suit may have given you a serious case of the dreaded condition know as ‘teh ghey’. I have to say, I dont swing that way broski!
[/quote]

Strawman: To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You claimed that I called everyone a brotard that disagrees with Starting Strength. you were making up an argument to refute that was not made. If it looks like a strawman, and sounds like a strawman…

Don’t flatter yourself, I could get way better gay guys than you. I compete in drug tested federations, don’t use steroids, and have never put on a squat suit (the word you may be looking for is SINGLET and it is Metal, not Inzer). Next time you go all Nancy Drew, you might want to do better research.[/quote]

Sadly, I have no idea who nancy drew is. With your vast experience in picking up gay men, I think Gregron may be interested as you seem to have developed a cheering section.

116

Wow, this thread has certainly grown wild since I last dropped by. And in my opinion, it has also lost a lot of focus, with a lot people arguing over very silly stuff and criticising the program without having any first hand experience with it. But I think amidst all of this there are some good points that have been persistent throughout the thread and are worth rescuing:

  1. I think we can all agree that SS is a good program for building decent levels of strength, which is it’s goal, if done diligently. My personal experience with it was that my Back Squat went from 225X5 to 300X5 in four months, Press From 205X5 to 245X5, Press from 125X5 to 160X5, Deadlift from 300X5 to 365X5 and Clean from nothing to 205X3. I think this is very good progress and people around me who have done it have obtained similar results.

  2. It is NOT a BBing program, nor does it claim to be, so any visual transformation one experiences from the program is more a side effect than the primary goal. However, I think it is universally accepted that for bbing purposes, building a solid strength base is not a bad idea as it will pay big dividends in the medium and long term and there lyes it’s value for bodybuilding novices.

  3. GOMAD isn’t for everyone and most will not need such a great caloric surplus to build strength and mass optimally and most will gain more fat than necessary by drinking a gallon of milk per day. As always, sensible eating, evaluation of one’s progress and common sense are always key.

  4. Ripptoe is not a bodybuilder and I don’t think he has ever cared about his BF% or the look of his abz, so to judge him for how he looks like doesn’t make a lot of sense. If one were to accept that a coach’s own achievements can be used as a gauge of his worth, then he should be judged by his strength feats, which I think we can all agree are very respect-worthy.

117

What’s the main argument against beginners using Starting Strength or similar templates? It adds a lot of poundage to the squat/bench/clean/press/deadlift which should carry over to other routines once the lifter moves on to a bb template, no?

I think I am missing something…

118

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

for most is that hypertrophy plateaus are quickly, (1-2 years ish), acquired without programming, drugs or genetics, to surpass them.[/quote]

How do you know this? I know you didn’t put a number on it, but I think you’re kind of underestimating human potential.

I wouldn’t just assume anyone is an outlier without watching them grow and change over the years, I personally know I am not an outlier. My first year and a half beyond beginner gains I had really shitty results until I started obsessing about never missing meals, workouts, sleep and minimizing alcohol and drug use, ohhhh and spending hours in front of a computer trying to learn as much as I could about growing.

Could it be that some of us do actually work harder/smarter than others?

119

I can’t believe I’m about to step into this shit storm… especially as a relative beginner but here goes. Starting strength is not for everyone, it is targeted towards beginners hence the name “starting” strength.

However, I firmly believe that as a beginner (no matter what your future goals are), starting strength is one of the best ways to start out. After all a basic level of strength is the best way to begin as a new lifter even for a bodybuilder. I should point out before I get any further that I did not start with starting strength.

I began as one of those idiots who read bodybuilding programs and created a horrid one of my own (yeah sets of 10 bench pressing, squatting in a smith machine, more cable crossover work than all legs combined, I was a mess). My biggest regret to training so far is not strating with starting strength. ALso like Chris said the GOMAD diet is used for skinny guys who are also eating healthy.

Another thing that is clearly mentioned in the book is that this is not to be continued long term. After a certain period of the GOMAD diet and eating 6000 calories the trainee backs off to around 4000 calories and keeps his body fat levels in check. I know I shouldn’t have posted this but its really a shame to see starting strength bashed like this when it is a very good program for beginners.

Once again I did not do starting strength and strayed from the basic barbell lifts as a beginner and still sometimes find myself doing so (at least now I can somwhat justify it). So yes the next response to my post will prlly be “you didn’t do it so how can you promote it”. I believet that its my lack of doing the program as a beginner that makes me buy into it more, as I would be so much farther right now if I had done it.

120

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

70% minimum, speaking from my experience, of men would stave of initial hypertrophy plateaus longer by focusing almost all their efforts in multi-joint lifting.
I can’t even believe that is controversial to state, but please go actually do and then tell me I’m wrong, I’ve done.
You can get so much farther with your triceps if you do all pressing till that doesn’t work any more and THEN do the reverse kickbacks or whatever.

[/quote]

I can kinda agree with this, but I don’t think isolations should be completely ignored.