I thought this was interesting, and really got me thinking. You hear some advocate for how simple, minimalistic training is a great way to get strong and progress. You really don’t need as much as you think, and a few basic movements a few times a week, along with walking and mobility, is the way to go.
The argument against this was: this is advocated by people who didn’t use this approach to get strong themselves, but instead to maintain strength as they have gotten older and more experienced. I was thinking of Dan John, Jim Wendler, and even the advice I give. The argument was people like them (and, if I can be so bold, myself - albeit at a lower level) first built up a high level of strength and conditioning by doing very hard work; running intense programs that really take a lot of time and a huge amount of effort. Then, once a significant base of strength has been developed over years and years of high effort, transitioning to more basic, minimalistic programs works great as a to maintain this strength. It’s like we forgot how we got where we are, and are conflating our current approach with the methods required to get strong in the first place.
Thoughts on this? @T3hPwnisher is the most philosophical on this board, so thought I’d tag him. @Frank_C, @TrainForPain seem like you’d have some thoughts as well.
I use very minimalist training, only clean and press with kettlebells and pullups at the moment.
It seems to be working because I train each day with high frequency greasing the groove
Yeah, I guess it depends on the movements and the effort. “Minimalistic” is kind of a vague term. I think the original post I had read was focused on volume and intensity, as well, and that it really does take some dedicated, intense work to build up any real muscle and physically noticeable changes.
Appreciate the tag and the kind words. Alright, first: operationalization of terms. What IS minimalism? Well, what would be the opposite? Maximalism? Which is to say: doing the most in pursuit of the LEAST reward? For is minimalism not attempting to do the least for the MOST reward? In that sense, is it not the cast that the VAST majority of ALL training is, in fact, minimalism? And, perhaps, beginners simply need MORE stimulus in the beginning phases because of their inability to generate meaningful intensity (intensity of effort, not intensity as understood as percentage of 1rm) within a set itself, whereas the experienced trainee can pour themselves entirely into a single set and get a massive benefit from it? Perhaps, instead, what we are observing is that we’re always training as minimalist: it’s just that the dose ITSELF reduces as we become better and better at the training.
Because let’s break down the question even further: if all minimalism DID was “maintain”, it wouldn’t really BE minimalism. My understanding is that minimalism is about pursuing the lowest dose necessary for PROGRESS and then riding that razor’s edge. We don’t overdose, we don’t underdose: we goldilocks it. And it’s also understood that it’s not the minimal dose to achieve MAXIMAL progress: just the minimal dose to achieve progress itself. And this would be because the law of diminishing returns is such that, once we cross the threshold, it takes more and more input to achieve less and less output. As Dan John noted, to get about 80% ROI, we can train 3 days per week for 20-30 minutes at a time. To get that other 20%, we train 6 days a week for 2 hours per session.
But speaking of Dan John, he also says you have to EARN minimalism, and this, historically, is also true. We observed a big trend of minimalism/abbreviated training with Stuart McRobert’s writing in Brawn, alongside Dr Ken Leistner and some could even argue the HIT crowd. This came in response to the high volume wave of the golden era of bodybuliding in the 70s, with Arnold and kin having many training days with massive amounts of worksets. Well, trainees TRAINED that way, didn’t get the results they wanted due to a lack of recovery (most likely, drugs), then picked up these abbreviated/minimalist programs and EXPOLODED. Why? Because they had accumulated so much volume and fatigue that a program that allowed them to recover and express some of that built up volume allowed them to finally grow. And then we forgot all those lessons in the mid to late 90s and Mark Rippteoe had to save us all in 2005, as did Jim Wendler in 2008. And we forgot all those lessons, and here came Dan John…again, because he saved us all 20 years ago too, but we forgot.
Long story long, training will always be a game of stimulate and recover, and from there it’s about dialing in the appropriate dosage for both. With periodization, minimalism fits in perfectly in a dualistic relationship with stupid high volume.
Wow, great response and so much to think about. I feel like things I’ve read before sometimes didn’t stick at the time, or I wasn’t ready to get them.
This reminds me of something Jim Wendler said (sorry, don’t remember where) to the effect of: With my experience, I can get more out of a set of 5 then new trainees can get out of 100 reps.
I’ve been making lots of observations being around so many new trainees and some with a bit of experience. Why do some get “results” - be it visual improvements but mostly performance and capability - while others show up every day but really have nothing to show for it? At CF, they’re running the same programs but clearly getting something very different as the outcome. Sorry for the tangent, but it does seem like those that don’t really progress never really get good at training. I don’t know the correct term, but low quality reps, loose sloppy movements, etc…
Yes, and it seems that minimalistic training also allows us to show progress differently. Doing a focused program (as I am now) on KB cleans and presses mine I can improve on a narrow focus, yet the stimulus of the training - and at least maintaining light work on other areas - means that I don’t really lose anything on other aspects of training.
This is great! I have heard him say this or similar. I remember a different podcast from years back - can’t remember which - where they were saying that once you’re strong and fit, that’s all nearly all people will notice. As you go beyond this, the ROI vs time skyrockets. As always, DJ has it figured out.
This kind of gets to the intent of my post. I also recently read something from Jim Wendler where he said he had changed a coaching approach. He said he used to advise focusing just on getting better and stronger at the main barbell lifts. But he has realized for most they really need the assistance - getting good at push ups, pull ups, and some basic movements. His rationale was that he took this for granted because he came from an athletic background where he did some much running, jumping, and varied movements, but many of his trainees didn’t every build that.
I know you’ve said how people will comment on genetics regarding your strength and progress. Though not as advanced as you, must of my friends will say I’m genetically lucky to account for the fact that we all workout, but their results are not the same. Of course, on the occasions I have worked out with them, it’s obvious as to why.
My father was into powerlifting in the 1980s and into the 90’s. When I first started going to the gym in high school he’d ask me what I did. I’d tell him the routine, basically pulled out of a Muscle and Fitness . He’d always say I was doing too many different lifts, too much variety. “You add the other stuff once you begin to stall and bring up your weakness.” He and the other monsters he trained with all had a very basic template with minimal lifts. They all got ridiculously strong with the squat, bench, deadlift and press. A few of them were 800lb squatters. Minimal is great as long as the intensity is there.
I think my brain kind of makes illustrations in an attempt to understand stuff. I don’t think I’m saying anything new, I’m just using a synonym to describe the same thing here.
Although I think some of my word choice varies mostly in the “grande scheme” sense. I don’t regularly use words like “optimal”, “minimal”, “maximum”, etc. I kind of view it like when you buy a puzzle box, and begin putting it together.
Some start on the edges, others rely on the picture for reference, some don’t even HAVE to look at the picture, others work the middle. Some bounce back and forth from left to right, or work on chunks and then piece those chunks together.
I do think the main thing is to remind yourself you’re working on a puzzle, you know what the puzzle looks like you just don’t know which of the tiny pieces locks in with the other ones yet, you know how to assemble it, and to not try to jam pieces where they don’t fit.
Again though, I don’t think I’ve said anything remotely different. So….yes I agree lol.
Anyway, I completely agree with everything. I was going to start with a “depends what your definition of is, is,” but was beaten to that punch.
I think when people talk “minimalist” training, they’re really referencing a specific condition:
Maintenance. As mentioned, we keep our muscle more easily than we grow it. Once we’ve built the majority of our base, how would we even really know whether we’re growing vs maintaining, especially if maybe our conditioning is improving as well?
Effectiveness. As mentioned before, maybe I can just get more out of my sets. In the case of plates on the bar, total volume expressed as tonnage may not even be going down. This one is probably big; if we were talking calisthenics, for example, you wouldn’t expect to do fewer pull ups because you got stronger and leaner, but you might do harder moves.
Efficiency. The old Pareto Principle, and I think the main point people are getting at when they throw around the word “optimal” (I’m with @planetcybertron on my confusion with the word). We exist on a spectrum between grasping every grain of possible progress and getting any progress, but we have a tough time not thinking in binary terms.
Recovery. I think this is a huge one. Dudes will come out of high volume phases, be exhausted, so they back it off and then grow. All of a sudden, anything more than one set of 5 reps is overtraining, but they don’t realize they really just employed a peaking cycle. Stay in it too long, and we’ll just determine we’re at our “genetic limit”.
I liked your other points about seeing folks that just don’t change no matter whether they’re following the same program as you or not. I remember when I first was in school and there was a guy that just couldn’t run. He put in so much time and asked for all the plans in the world and really did go out and run. I ran with him a couple times and could see just those runs were stressing him out. I couldn’t think of anything to tell him other than chill out and just run faster. I doubt that ever helped, but I think it’s the same in the gym: a lot of these debates are on the margins and won’t make a difference in the face of just needing to train better.
I must have heard it here at some point from someone, so forgive the paraphrasing- “What ever you’re doing, cut it in half.”.
That to me would be minimalist. Maintenance would be even less.
I had a long stretch of a “break” of sorts, followed by a regaining/maintenance period that was considerably low volume, but really quite effective when you weigh regain & maintain over effort. And it wasn’t really very well designed. I was just hitting a few basic compounds and a few isolations (curls & whatnot) per session and some airdyne daily. Keeping the blood flowing and muscles moving.
So, I consider conditioning what ever you’re doing to reach and maintain the state you’re in. Could be lifting, running, what ever. Thats your conditioning which created your condition.
I’m going to say its relative. If you were in incredible shape before (like you, @antiquity, i know, you’re pretty humble, but for real man!) And you dial back it will still likely be more than some who were in less good shape, Like single activity (lifting of some type only, etc.) people that simply don’t have as much to lose.
I relate it to inertia. You have to push really hard to get the ball (or car) rolling. Then even harder to get it going faster. Once you’ve reached pushing as hard and fast as you can, you can ease up a little and still have it moving at a good clip. Is it peak? No. Are you trying as hard as at peak? Also no.
But you aren’t pushing nearly as hard as you did to get to peak.
My saving grace in running, cycling, airdyning, and many other manual activities was the ability to just shut my mind down and go. No agonizing, no internal dialog- just smooth sailing to wherever or whenever doing whatever. Like meditation.
I totally agree. I think it’s just hard to tell where you are in real time, because progress is slow anyway. Maybe you’re maintaining, but you feel good, joints are good, and maybe even leaning out a bit because you’re less hungry - pretty easy to conclude you’re doing the minimal effective dose to make progress.
I saw some YouTuber say something along the lines of “if this optimal? No. But, trust me, you really don’t want optimal.” I liked that phrasing.
I was thinking more about this. In addition to people that “workout” and never see results, you also see others that know how to get into great shape, but then they just let it all go and get chubby and out of shape. Then, they decide to get back into shape and do it all over again.
I wonder if, for me at least, learning how to “maintain” is a key to staying fit all the time. It’s like dieting for many - they are either losing weight or putting it back on, but never learn how to simply maintain a healthy, desirable weight. Going balls-to-the-wall all the time is not possible for most people, or if it is you must continually shift your emphasis. Or, you go harder for a training block and then maintain. This is what Dan John recommends as a great option - go back and forth between the Armor Building Formula and Easy Strength. Perhaps Easy Strength is one of the best, most known “minimalist” programs, even though DJ has said he’s seen breakthroughs in strength with this type of training. Though, as discussed above, it could also be because it’s allowing him to really see the results of the earlier, more intense training block.
In regards to complexity… Variety and volume. I fall into the view point as some do that its a bell curve as you progress throughthe various stages. As a beginner it is pretty simple and a minimalist approach will stimulate adaptations. As one enter your more “ intermediate “ stage youll end up needing to do more. Evently at some point once your more “ advanced “ for a various amout of reason a minimalist approach becomes more beneficial. As hinted at above.
I am not qualified as much to answer this, so I will just respond with my experience.
Beginners cannot fully generate enough intensity for sure. However, I find too many beginners doing these crazy regimens that I feel would benefit from a much much simpler program.
I feel like starting strength is almost the perfect beginner program for strength because it is putting focus on form and stress. It looks like you are getting stronger, and you are, but more importantly you learn how to put your body in a position to move weight.
I think after starting strength, you need more accessory and volume. This is where it becomes increasingly important to balance your diet, workout and recovery taking your age and genetics into account. This is where you learn how to listen to your body if you dont have a coach.
I am in this intermediate area, so I know absolutely nothing about what it takes to keep up progress as an advanced lifter. But you bet your ass if I ever get there, I will be utilizing our experienced members that have been supporting me through my intermediate journey
I think this is spot on. My sons (twins, college aged) are both a bit bigger and taller than me. Yet, much weaker when it comes to moving weights. I have them both on the Armor Building Formula, because they like simple programs and like KBs. For them, it’s just learning that they are stronger than they currently show. For example, they were doing the ABCs with 12 kg KBs at first. That’s below a woman’s weight. I bumped them up to the 18 kgs, which they can easily handle. I think for them, it’s just that “Oh, it’s supposed to be this hard” is a realization that new trainees don’t often have. I guess because in the rest of life, you just don’t exert yourself physically. They never played sports beyond their younger youth, and I did, so perhaps that has something to do with it to. When I was their age, I was benching 275+ lbs at about 25 lbs lighter than them, and they’d tell me that 185 lbs is just too much for them.
All that said, I don’t push them and they’ll come around when they’re ready. It’s great they’ve developed a routine and have an interest in training, and that’s just we’re they’re currently at.
.