I don’t get this either or attitude with training. What’s wrong with being conditioned and strong? That’s what a lot of military programs that I see strive for. Why is there a focus on only strength training or only cardio? The two are important together.
[quote]tweaker wrote:
I don’t get this either or attitude with training. What’s wrong with being conditioned and strong? That’s what a lot of military programs that I see strive for. Why is there a focus on only strength training or only cardio? The two are important together.[/quote]
I agree, but with all respect perhaps you should re-read the article :). I can’t tell if you were speaking generally or to the article, but if it’s the latter…He’s not saying either/or, he’s saying that people trying to condition themselves while having NO STRENGTH is a big sham, because it won’t do near as much for overall capacity as having a base level of strength. He’s not saying you shouldn’t be conditioned, he’s saying without a base level of strength to go with it, you’re losing out. So, similar to what you said (strength and conditioning), just concentrating on addressing a single aspect of that for new-to-working-out people and weak-ass athletes :). He wasn’t really making a blanket statement although a ton of people seem to think that’s what he meant.
EDIT–and not sure if you mean “military fitness” style routines or actual military PT work, but in my experience and that of several active duty vets here the actual Army PT work sucks ass for being “both strong and conditioned”, see Ambugaton’s earlier posts on this thread for examples.
[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
[quote]DirtyM wrote:
[quote]krazylarry wrote:
[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
This may not be in keeping with the tone of this thread so far, but I really appreciated what Mr. Rippetoe said about training in the military.
We absolutely don’t do anything conducive to strength gains, we run way too much, and our ranks are, for the most part, filled with skinny-fat soft-bodies who resemble suckling pigs. [/quote]
In you opinion would army guys be better at their jobs by lifting more and running less? [/quote]
Man, I really think there’s two threads here, but absolutely YES; less running (far less) and more strength training (hell, ANY strength training). But that goes directly against the dinosaur thinking that runs rampant with senior ranking officers and NCOs who equate running 2 miles in under 12:00 = warrior. With many of my peers it’s like talking to a wall (I’m old). “Strength training? getting all bulked up like a bodybuilder makes you inflexible and stiff, and besides…you can’t run fast when you’re big.” ??? How exactly, does distance running prepare you for the rigors of ground combat? Asinine.
I really hope the younger Soldiers on here steer the Army away from its running fetish as they move onward and upward. But I doubt it will happen. [/quote]
YES. Hey, if you can tell me how to go about changing things, I’m all ears.
[/quote]
Google an article from Starting Strength titled “Why Does The Army Want Me Weak?”. Print it and show it to your superiors, peers, and the dudes you’re in charge of. Let that simmer for a bit, then challenge anyone who doesn’t buy in to a strength test and an APFT in I dunno, 90 days. If I can fid the link, I’ll post it up where Glassman destroys senior officers (0-6’s) at the War College on their misconceptions about fitness and how it’s destroyed their bodies, and hasn’t prepared them for shit.
Continue to question illogical and nonsensical fitness programs and anything else that doesn’t pass muster; make old dudes feel uncomfortable when they can’t defend dumb shit!
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I agree, but with all respect perhaps you should re-read the article :). I can’t tell if you were speaking generally or to the article, but if it’s the latter…He’s not saying either/or, he’s saying that people trying to condition themselves while having NO STRENGTH is a big sham, because it won’t do near as much for overall capacity as having a base level of strength. He’s not saying you shouldn’t be conditioned, he’s saying without a base level of strength to go with it, you’re losing out. So, similar to what you said (strength and conditioning), just concentrating on addressing a single aspect of that for new-to-working-out people and weak-ass athletes :). He wasn’t really making a blanket statement although a ton of people seem to think that’s what he meant.
EDIT–and not sure if you mean “military fitness” style routines or actual military PT work, but in my experience and that of several active duty vets here the actual Army PT work sucks ass for being “both strong and conditioned”, see Ambugaton’s earlier posts on this thread for examples.[/quote]
I re-read it just for you:)
Anyway, in his example, he is talking about prepping for tossing hay, and with that frame, his point of view makes sense. However, here’s a twist. I prep mainly for long distance backpacking in the mountains, where I’m hiking 12-20 miles a day with 35 or less pounds on my back. When I come back, my cardio is stronger, but my lifts are weaker. If he were to frame up his article with doing the backpacking trip instead of the hay, his article makes far less sense. And that’s really the issue here. It’s all about how he framed it up.
My original reply was saying that I think both conditioning and strength training are important. However, I’m not tossing hay; I’m backpacking at 8-10 thousand feet with around 35 lbs on my back for 4-6 straight hours without break. So what I have found works out best for me is running 20 miles a week and doing strength training circuits following my runs. Sure, I can’t lift as much after a 5 mile run, nor can I lift as much when doing circuits non-stop or with little break, but I’m still getting stronger. But I’m definitely not conditioned for tossing 70 lb hay throughout a day.
But that’s the other point. I think we should train for our goals. And let’s not rip on endurance athletes because they’re not down squatting 500 lbs. That’s not their goal. Go strength train to toss hay and then run a 50k and tell me how that works out for you. Beyond basic fitness, it’s difficult not to specialize.
[quote]DirtyM wrote:
[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
[quote]DirtyM wrote:
[quote]krazylarry wrote:
[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
This may not be in keeping with the tone of this thread so far, but I really appreciated what Mr. Rippetoe said about training in the military.
We absolutely don’t do anything conducive to strength gains, we run way too much, and our ranks are, for the most part, filled with skinny-fat soft-bodies who resemble suckling pigs. [/quote]
In you opinion would army guys be better at their jobs by lifting more and running less? [/quote]
Man, I really think there’s two threads here, but absolutely YES; less running (far less) and more strength training (hell, ANY strength training). But that goes directly against the dinosaur thinking that runs rampant with senior ranking officers and NCOs who equate running 2 miles in under 12:00 = warrior. With many of my peers it’s like talking to a wall (I’m old). “Strength training? getting all bulked up like a bodybuilder makes you inflexible and stiff, and besides…you can’t run fast when you’re big.” ??? How exactly, does distance running prepare you for the rigors of ground combat? Asinine.
I really hope the younger Soldiers on here steer the Army away from its running fetish as they move onward and upward. But I doubt it will happen. [/quote]
YES. Hey, if you can tell me how to go about changing things, I’m all ears.
[/quote]
Google an article from Starting Strength titled “Why Does The Army Want Me Weak?”. Print it and show it to your superiors, peers, and the dudes you’re in charge of. Let that simmer for a bit, then challenge anyone who doesn’t buy in to a strength test and an APFT in I dunno, 90 days. If I can fid the link, I’ll post it up where Glassman destroys senior officers (0-6’s) at the War College on their misconceptions about fitness and how it’s destroyed their bodies, and hasn’t prepared them for shit.
Continue to question illogical and nonsensical fitness programs and anything else that doesn’t pass muster; make old dudes feel uncomfortable when they can’t defend dumb shit![/quote]
Ha. Wonderful. Thank you!
[quote]tweaker wrote:
But that’s the other point. I think we should train for our goals. And let’s not rip on endurance athletes because they’re not down squatting 500 lbs. That’s not their goal. Go strength train to toss hay and then run a 50k and tell me how that works out for you. Beyond basic fitness, it’s difficult not to specialize.[/quote]
This is why so many are saying the article was misread. I don’t think, in fact I know, that Rip isn’t saying endurance training is wrong if you are an endurance athlete.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]tweaker wrote:
But that’s the other point. I think we should train for our goals. And let’s not rip on endurance athletes because they’re not down squatting 500 lbs. That’s not their goal. Go strength train to toss hay and then run a 50k and tell me how that works out for you. Beyond basic fitness, it’s difficult not to specialize.[/quote]
This is why so many are saying the article was misread. I don’t think, in fact I know, that Rip isn’t saying endurance training is wrong if you are an endurance athlete. [/quote]
This is it.
my buddy who asked rip a few questions about training with weights also asked him about weight training for cycling…in a nutshell, rip said to get bigger and getting bigger produces a bigger engine, therefore making you ride faster…WTF!!!100% wrong.then in a smart ass way he was kinda saying how cyclists are dumb and just dont get it…they need to lift, and how he was training a guy who was a track cyclist… track guys are100% different than a road cyclist… which my buddy told rip he was.those track guys lift and lift alot cause their events are short and most start from a standstill. which means strength from the weights is used ONLY FOR THE FIRST FEW RPM’S.
reading web sites on cycling these past 20+ years the top cycling coaches in the world have their cyclist do strength training on the bike. stomps, jumps, muscle tension intervals…weights do nothing for the road racer. been proven these last 50 years… from the top coaches in the world that study cyclists, not some midwest strength coach like rip…for overall fitness, if you are a normal guy riding a few days, lift too. for a cycling champ, ride…i think most world class cyclists for a month do all sorts of weight exercises, leg press squats stepups, core work. the other 11 months they ride and ride alot.what did lance do on the videos? step ups, hang cleans… he rode… rip may know about squat form, and deadlift form, but he is no way at all a cycling coach. according to him, if you are big you will be stronger on the bike. then dorian yated will beat me on the bike then? hahaha. rips a trip…
[quote]Adversary wrote:
Hey, long-time lurker, just registered so can’t comment on articles yet.
I like the focus on getting stronger over traditional steady-state conditioning, e.g. jogging. But I haven’t found it to work out quite like Rippetoe seems to promise. Like, after a period of heavy lifting with little conditioning, if I go out and do a sport like skiing, basketball, martial arts, I find that I am sucking wind pretty hard.
In terms of my strength levels I am a long way behind many here, so maybe I am just not strong enough. I wonder though if there aren’t some assumptions behind Rippetoe’s thinking that may not apply to the casual lifter/athlete.
Specifically, he seems to assume that in addition to strength training, you are doing a lot of pretty strenuous sports practice, like his athletes are. Maybe a better title would be, “Conditioning is a sham (if you are already practicing your sport 2-3 hours a day).”
So for those who aren’t, what’s the balance between gaining strength and cardiovascular fitness? [/quote]
After reading the article, I have to admit he probably wasn’t talking about you and I agree both with what you’re saying here and what he’s suggesting about the extreme beginners. If you’re doing any sport, even for fun, you’re probably beyond the level of beginner he’s referring to.
There are some great programming suggestions in this thread. I’ve enjoyed it.
I didn’t think it was that controversial to say that being stronger will make doing more work easier…
some nice discussion here…
i found the article hit home for me.
i think one of the things you need to ask yourself when you hear someone make training recommendations is: what population do they have in mind (am in part of that population)?
I have an immense amount of respect for Ripptoe… Someone who recognized that squats were hard enough to write a whole chapter on them… That person has my respect. I did ‘Starting Strength’ when I first started out and made good gains on it… But I also had some problems… And I’ve discovered that other people have problems… And I’ve come to think that the reason for the problems is that we are not part of the population that Ripptoe intended Starting Strength for… Which (of course) isn’t his fault, exactly…
But back to the article…
I’m a chick. I started lifting (for strength) later in life. Age 30 to be exact. I had serious mobility issues. I still have serious mobility issues (from old injury that limit ankle dorsiflexion in particular which (along with my athropomentry) seriously problematise squatting. I’ve also learned that my old injuries basically have the effect of massive electric shocks to my body… Which basically means that not only does my neuromuscular coordination suck ass but the firing sequences are mostly out of synch. I’m a freaking train wreck. But still… I made significant progress on ‘Starting Strength’ lolz.
(which is designed for 18 year old male (and female) athletes primarily)
Anyhoo…
What did I take from this article?
I see other women at my chain gym. I see the trainers (if I’m gonna compete it is gonna be with them). I see how adapted they are to their body pump or their body attack or their body balance or whatthefuckever types of classes… And of course doing their classes for 3x a week is one way to adapt to their classes…
But what if there was a wonderful magical way of training such that one could do moderately to good well on the classes without doing the specific (e.g., going to class 3x a week) training that they do???
what would one do for that wonderful magical training?
I’m finding: my core can do the core requirements of balance (yoga) step (pylometrics) and pump (weights) easy peasy from just heavy squats and deads haha!
i can do all the freaking push-ups that are meant to be strength moves by doing the freaking bench press.
in other words: training for strength (and doing no conditioning work at all) has a positive carry-over to their classes.
but doing their classes?
hell… those people still don’t know how to squat and jump right… you could NEVER train like that and safely test your 1RM!!!
in other words: i should be careful about how much ‘conditioning’ work i do (prioritizing it interferes with my strength development) and appreciate that maximinsing my strength development will have the BEST positive carryover (i can freaking out core-strength them all and out push-up them all and out quarter-squat them all). IF they worked as hard as me (which they don’t) then they would be more adapted to their particular thing… But generally speaking… one is better to prioritize strength than the conditioning they provide.
does this make sense?
specific population…
I dont’ know what population Ripptoe had in mind…
but the population i’m talking about (which is of course different from teh one he had in mind):
TRUTH.
of course this falls under ‘beginner’ comparison…
if i can do it for one then doing it for two isn’t that great of a stretch…
at which point not doing it for three seems ridiculous… then just one more is nothing much…
and then just another. and so on.
and that is the mentality i have about training for strength. i KNOW i can do it. and then I KNOW i can do it for another. and so on…
but their training for conditioning seems to be quite the different beast…
i don’t know how to describe it… but their movements seem fairly sloppy (to my mind) because they aren’t mentally focused on ‘just one (hence perfect) rep’. and they just kind of… peter out. demoralized. maybe they got one more rep than last time, i don’t know.
of course they SHOULD be more adapted if that is the kind of work they are doing and they work hard at it (e.g., they are lactate training and i am not)
They are lactate training and I am not.
They should be better at work that requires tolerance to lactate. But they aren’t.
I don’t know… Bunch of wusses, I swear.
But I know about feeling the fear and doing it anyway. That’s what strength training trains, yeah?
Nope Alexus, you’re pretty spot on with what Rip was talking about. Same goes for weak athletes, with the exception that they are usually much more coordinated/balanced as per their sport.
[quote]caveman101 wrote:
This was probably one of the most mis-read articles on T-Nation.[/quote]
Exactly.
Ripptoe very clearly states he’s talking about the physical progression of training in beginners. He also very clearly states marathon running is a specific (extreme) goal and that if you were training for that goal then this doesn’t apply. This would cover exactly what the cyclist and backpacker were complaining about. He says “this isn’t meant for you” then they get butt hurt and say “but this isn’t meant for me”…? Really?
He also quite clearly writes that conditioning should be included at a later date–and specifically points out the prowler for this purpose.
Every single complaint about that article comes from poor reading comprehension. Every single one.
And also a strange misconception that if someone points out your poor reading comprehension to you that means they’re a sycophant.
Ripptoe titles his article with a simple and brash declarative statment; “conditioning is a shame” yet we are the ones taking it out of context.
Yes.
It is a title–not the article.
Now here’s what I grant you; if you only read the title and don’t bother to read the article then sure, you’re not misunderstanding anything and all sorts of arguments could come into play.
But if you actually read what is written then every complaint about the article given in this thread so far is spurious.
Also, honestly, get a labor job. If you try and go to school and do your reports based only on the title of a study or text book you’re going to be getting F’s right, left and central. Your failure will be epic.
I mean come on, being sarcastic aside (honestly), do you think “I read the title” is an example of good reading comprehension? Especially in the internet age when titles are designed to get people surfing the web to stop long enough to click and read the longer piece? The tradition of using provocative titles to draw attention to a more moderately written article is pretty well established. Really, “the title”, that’s going to be your argument?
You don’t think that–there’s no way you could.
EDIT: just as a btw, the red words and underlines aren’t mine, I don’t know why they’re there
The only thing a logical person can deduce from the title of the article is that it was either reflective of the content of the artlicle or it’s not anything more than a contentious marketing statement designed to cause plublicty for the author. You can’t seperate or minimalize the title in a nut hugging attempt to try to legitimize the artile in light of it’s “specious” title.
A basic english lesson on the purposes of titles in relation to articles and published papers:
[quote]JRT6 wrote:
The only thing a logical person can deduce from the title of the article is that it was either reflective of the content of the artlicle or it’s not anything more than a contentious marketing statement designed to cause plublicty for the author. You can’t seperate or minimalize the title in a nut hugging attempt to try to legitimize the artile in light of it’s “specious” title.
A basic english lesson on the purposes of titles in relation to articles and published papers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles[/quote]
So, just to clarify, have you read and are you disagreeing with the content of the article or do you just feel that it was poorly titled?
Yea I read it an posted my opinion on page one of this thread.
[quote]JRT6 wrote:
Ripp has detractors that says he says crap just to stir the pot and get attention. This article didn’t help his case. You can’t slam marathon training as have no carry to specific tasks, which is true outside of pure cardio base, and then imply that having a strong OHP makes you any better at specific sport skills and tasks. He started the article saying to have an open mind and then went on with his closed shut.[/quote]
I looked at your first post as instructed. Because I’m nuthugging you.
I’m going to say that what you wrote above is in direct opposition to your attempt in that last post to claim you have a solid handle on English 101.
1st, he doesn’t slam marathon training–unless training in that manner is an attempt to achieve genral-ized athletic fitness, in which case, what kind of idiot would push marathon training? No one.
However, most telling of your lackadaisical reading in this case is the quote [quote] I agree that youths need to focus on strength when they’re starting out but once you’re training for a sport you can’t ignore all the preperation needed for it.[/quote] The article clearly and explicitly addresses this–and says pretty much exactly what you’re saying. It’s like Rippetoe wrote “A+B=C” and you then wrote “what a closed minded old bastard! Everybody KNOWS that A+B=C” You then pause in satisfaction at your white knuckled grasp of the obvious–while everyone around you is scratching their heads wondering…“what article did he read?”
And, again, pointing out that your post indicate a basic lack of reading comprehension isn’t nuthugging. Nuthugging would be if you had made some valid point (at all, even one)and the response was then “no! Dear Mr. Rippetoe is a hunky bear of a stud. He’s right 'cause he has a swell beard and you’re wrong because you’re a poopy head.” That never happened because you never made a correct observation and the only argument you ever got was people pointing out you were posting like you hadn’t understood what you read.
That view point makes about as much sense as judging an article in its entirety by a single sentence…or by the title.
I realize I posted a little bluntly. It was a little aggressive and I could see why someone might not like having their errors pointed out to them or their intelligence and education potential questioned. Fair enough. We can talk about that and I might even apologize for coming off so assertive.
But if your going to continue to stubbornly cling to your mistaken view on the article I’m going to continue to point out how every argument you’ve made so far seems based on some other article than the one this thread is about.
But I’ll do it a little more nicely. (with smiley faces and lol’s and everything; lol, ;->).