Strength or Size First

Training
121

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:

[quote]DN90 wrote:
That before and after pick is awful to be honest.

And having a near 1:1 ratio of lean to fat mass added is terrible at any stage of a lifter’s development. [/quote]
Doesn’t his appearance have more to do with drinking a gallon of whole milk per day?
[/quote]

Dude, I wouldn’t see him and think weights had anything to do with his “after”. I personally think that is a mistake…but since it works so well and producing so many super strong people…

I mean, it is, right?[/quote]
OP’s plan now isn’t working, and Ripp has street cred.
Look, the OP is weak. SS is a plan that has worked. Hell I have done a routine that looked silly and ridiculous to prove it wrong, and it turned out I was wrong.
There are some tweaks one could do to make it more of a complete body approach, but as you stated somewhere above, press heavy first.
Even something as simple as
day 1- squat, 3x5. leg curl 2x10 standing press 3x5, lateral raise 2x10, pull ups 3x5 curl 2x10
day 2 squat 2x5 Deadlift 1x5 bench 3x5 row 3x5 rear delt raise 2x10 skull crusher 2x10

hit target reps, go up in weight. work out MWF, alternate days every workout. [/quote]

rip lost his street cred when he posted those pictures of zack…all gone, every bit of it.

he turned a skinny dude, into a fat dude that didn’t even look like he lifted weights. FACT!

Can we get a real rippetoe success story?[/quote]

the only people i have seen do any good on something like SS is with a modefied version.

i still dont think SS is optimal for bodybuilding but atleast this versions wont leave you no, back or arms.

122

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:

[quote]DN90 wrote:
That before and after pick is awful to be honest.

And having a near 1:1 ratio of lean to fat mass added is terrible at any stage of a lifter’s development. [/quote]
Doesn’t his appearance have more to do with drinking a gallon of whole milk per day?
[/quote]

Dude, I wouldn’t see him and think weights had anything to do with his “after”. I personally think that is a mistake…but since it works so well and producing so many super strong people…

I mean, it is, right?[/quote]
OP’s plan now isn’t working, and Ripp has street cred.
Look, the OP is weak. SS is a plan that has worked. Hell I have done a routine that looked silly and ridiculous to prove it wrong, and it turned out I was wrong.
There are some tweaks one could do to make it more of a complete body approach, but as you stated somewhere above, press heavy first.
Even something as simple as
day 1- squat, 3x5. leg curl 2x10 standing press 3x5, lateral raise 2x10, pull ups 3x5 curl 2x10
day 2 squat 2x5 Deadlift 1x5 bench 3x5 row 3x5 rear delt raise 2x10 skull crusher 2x10

hit target reps, go up in weight. work out MWF, alternate days every workout. [/quote]

rip lost his street cred when he posted those pictures of zack…all gone, every bit of it.

he turned a skinny dude, into a fat dude that didn’t even look like he lifted weights. FACT!

Can we get a real rippetoe success story?[/quote]

They exist…in theory.

People don’t follow what has worked for most anymore. They all think they can “out-smart” the hard work.

123

Starting Strength is a GREAT program.
For bodybuilding purposes, the guy who gained 55 lbs in 3 months has now a far better position to work from.
It is highly doubtful that a ‘5-day split’ would have had such a powerful impact on his physique.

Tweaking SS with isolation is tricky.
The trainee is still learning the lift and supposed to max out 3/week on 3 big lifts.
In my experience, keeping motivation up, technique fresh and injuries out would be more important.
He can curl for the rest of his life daily after one or two cycles of SS.
Maybe one isolation for a really weak bodypart - after the main lifts.

124

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Starting Strength is a GREAT program.
For bodybuilding purposes, the guy who gained 55 lbs in 3 months has now a far better position to work from.
It is highly doubtful that a ‘5-day split’ would have had such a powerful impact on his physique.
[/quote]

24lbs of fat. Twenty. Four. That`s a near 1:1 ratio of lean mass to fat mass.

Its not a question of whether he is in a better position-- and Im not sure he is in a better position. Even if you think he is better, well, doing something is better than nothing most of the time, so that`s all that proves.

Its a question of whether his approach is a good one for aesthetic purposes. He doesnt look bigger in a good way, regardless of 31 -not 55- pounds of muscle. He just looks fatter.

Despite only focusing on exercises that give you the most bang for your buck he didnt put on any size in the muscles that actually do give you the most bang for your buck in terms of looking impressive-- shoulders, arms, although he did gain some back width its not much.

His time would have definitely been better spent on a split.

And you cant characterize splits the same way you can a rigid program with preselected exercises and rep-set schemes that you follow exactly as written. Its possible to do a split that has ample use of compound lifts, and even a decent frequency of them (2x a week). May not be optimal for pure strength, but the name of the game is how you look.

125

BTW, Im only going on those pictures posted in this thread. If that guy reads this forum, Im not trying to be an ass, he may have different goals and may very well be succeeding on his own terms. It`s just not a good example of bodybuilding success. Good luck to him.

126

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Starting Strength is a GREAT program.
For bodybuilding purposes, the guy who gained 55 lbs in 3 months has now a far better position to work from.
It is highly doubtful that a ‘5-day split’ would have had such a powerful impact on his physique.

Tweaking SS with isolation is tricky.
The trainee is still learning the lift and supposed to max out 3/week on 3 big lifts.
In my experience, keeping motivation up, technique fresh and injuries out would be more important.
He can curl for the rest of his life daily after one or two cycles of SS.
Maybe one isolation for a really weak bodypart - after the main lifts.[/quote]

SS is far from a great program for bodybuilding. he is not in a better position now, he will now have to cut like 40 pounds after just 3 months of training… well done mark. coming off the original SS i have only ever seen one person look decent from a bodybuilding perspective, and he was a freak. lol why do we even have this arguement its pretty much fact there are far better routine for someone with physique oriented goals then SS.

127

I agree with everyone saying that strength is king.

Perhaps consider the following

Monday: Shoulder
Military press 5x5
Vertical pull (pull up, pulldown) 4x8-10
Skull Crushers 3x10
hanging leg raises 3x10

Tuesday: P-chain
Deadlift 5x5
Rdl 4x8-10
Barbell curl 3x10
Calf raises standing 3x10

Thursday: Chest
Bench Press 5x5
horizontal pull (db row etc) 4x8-10
cable pressdown 3x10
ab wheel rollouts 3x10

Friday: Quad
Squat 5x5
single leg db squat 4x8-10
db curl 3x10
calf raises seated 3x10

deload after 3-4 weeks

  • good luck
128

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Starting Strength is a GREAT program.
For bodybuilding purposes, the guy who gained 55 lbs in 3 months has now a far better position to work from.
It is highly doubtful that a ‘5-day split’ would have had such a powerful impact on his physique.
[/quote]

SS is NOT a great program if a good looking physique is your goal.

And by “Powerful impact on his physique” you “made him look fatter and no more trained than before” then, yes, you are correct.

129

[quote]Ausboss wrote:
I agree with everyone saying that strength is king.

Perhaps consider the following

Monday: Shoulder
Military press 5x5
Vertical pull (pull up, pulldown) 4x8-10
Skull Crushers 3x10
hanging leg raises 3x10

Tuesday: P-chain
Deadlift 5x5
Rdl 4x8-10
Barbell curl 3x10
Calf raises standing 3x10

Thursday: Chest
Bench Press 5x5
horizontal pull (db row etc) 4x8-10
cable pressdown 3x10
ab wheel rollouts 3x10

Friday: Quad
Squat 5x5
single leg db squat 4x8-10
db curl 3x10
calf raises seated 3x10

deload after 3-4 weeks

  • good luck
    [/quote]

No

130

SS is HEAVILY based off a old football strength program by Bill Starr. That’s being generous about it. Rip stole it and made it his baby instead of just pointing people to it. There is no absolutely right or wrong way to work out. On the scale of things, starting strength is a terrible idea for bodybuilding beginners. I don’t get why all these people ride this thing for years at a time unless your goal is a quick full body workout and to look athletic. Doesn’t seem like bodybuilding to me.

131

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
SS is HEAVILY based off a old football strength program by Bill Starr. That’s being generous about it. Rip stole it and made it his baby instead of just pointing people to it. There is no absolutely right or wrong way to work out. On the scale of things, starting strength is a terrible idea for bodybuilding beginners. I don’t get why all these people ride this thing for years at a time unless your goal is a quick full body workout and to look athletic. Doesn’t seem like bodybuilding to me.[/quote]

What would you, personally, recommend? Especially seeing as your own take on things seems to diverge quite a bit from mainstream.

132

I would grab Steve Reeves book “building the classic physique the natural way”. Reading it gives one a base of knowledge that you can use to guide ones thoughts on the way a correct bodybuilding plan is structured. Once your done with his basic cookie cutter routines you can branch out with a proper guide in your head. It includes full body workouts to start off a beginner, which I think is the only thing correct about starting strength for a beginner.

You could also try Frank Zane’s “high def body” or Vince Gironda’s “unleashing the wild physique” to start out. All three of these, while considered somewhat dated, set out a comprehensive plan that is years ahead of most of the crap begginers latch on to.

133

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
I would grab Steve Reeves book “building the classic physique the natural way”. Reading it gives one a base of knowledge that you can use to guide ones thoughts on the way a correct bodybuilding plan is structured. Once your done with his basic cookie cutter routines you can branch out with a proper guide in your head. It includes full body workouts to start off a beginner, which I think is the only thing correct about starting strength for a beginner.

You could also try Frank Zane’s “high def body” or Vince Gironda’s “unleashing the wild physique” to start out. All three of these, while considered somewhat dated, set out a comprehensive plan that is years ahead of most of the crap begginers latch on to.[/quote]

Wouldn’t Steve Reeves’ program be full-body, 3 times per week?

What I know is that I have a client on this board who is a powerlifter and minimally concerned with bodybuilding who has absolutely exploded over the last 18 months training full body 3-4 times per week. I’m sure the 530 lb squats and 650 lb deadlifts didn’t have anything to do with that though. I would be interested to see what he would look like in 12 months if we were to take his reps above 5’s, as he worked mainly in the 3-5 range for that time period.

I think the idea that so-and-so got really jacked never going over 225 on anything is great when you get into the realms of IFBB pro-level steroid, insulin, and peptide usage. It’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that you can just make a 1:1 transfer from the concepts that work for walking pharmacies to those who aren’t quite so enhanced. I know there are a lot of people on this board who don’t think that many people use and don’t think pros use as much as they do, but they’re lying to themselves. 90% of people placing in local shows are using, 99.9% of people placing in national level shows are using, and 90% of them are using in exorbitant amounts, and 100% of IFBB pros are using, 99.9% of them in exorbitant quantities.

The biggest natural trainees I know are all strong as fuark and all focused on getting strong as a means to get bigger. Several years ago, I would have laughed at such notions, as I knew everything. Now that I’ve begun to dig into these concepts and opened myself up to paradigms that I originally thought ridiculous (ie: anything other than body part splits), my opinions have changed as they are based on doing instead of reading about others doing.

So, OP, get strong on the right lifts for the right reps first and you will find yourself getting bigger at the same time. I like full body as a means to those ends, others don’t. Pick what suits you best and get. off. of. the. internet. Not complicated.

134

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
I would grab Steve Reeves book “building the classic physique the natural way”. Reading it gives one a base of knowledge that you can use to guide ones thoughts on the way a correct bodybuilding plan is structured. Once your done with his basic cookie cutter routines you can branch out with a proper guide in your head. It includes full body workouts to start off a beginner, which I think is the only thing correct about starting strength for a beginner.

You could also try Frank Zane’s “high def body” or Vince Gironda’s “unleashing the wild physique” to start out. All three of these, while considered somewhat dated, set out a comprehensive plan that is years ahead of most of the crap begginers latch on to.[/quote]

Wouldn’t Steve Reeves’ program be full-body, 3 times per week?

What I know is that I have a client on this board who is a powerlifter and minimally concerned with bodybuilding who has absolutely exploded over the last 18 months training full body 3-4 times per week. I’m sure the 530 lb squats and 650 lb deadlifts didn’t have anything to do with that though. I would be interested to see what he would look like in 12 months if we were to take his reps above 5’s, as he worked mainly in the 3-5 range for that time period.

I think the idea that so-and-so got really jacked never going over 225 on anything is great when you get into the realms of IFBB pro-level steroid, insulin, and peptide usage. It’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that you can just make a 1:1 transfer from the concepts that work for walking pharmacies to those who aren’t quite so enhanced. I know there are a lot of people on this board who don’t think that many people use and don’t think pros use as much as they do, but they’re lying to themselves. 90% of people placing in local shows are using, 99.9% of people placing in national level shows are using, and 90% of them are using in exorbitant amounts, and 100% of IFBB pros are using, 99.9% of them in exorbitant quantities.

The biggest natural trainees I know are all strong as fuark and all focused on getting strong as a means to get bigger. Several years ago, I would have laughed at such notions, as I knew everything. Now that I’ve begun to dig into these concepts and opened myself up to paradigms that I originally thought ridiculous (ie: anything other than body part splits), my opinions have changed as they are based on doing instead of reading about others doing.

So, OP, get strong on the right lifts for the right reps first and you will find yourself getting bigger at the same time. I like full body as a means to those ends, others don’t. Pick what suits you best and get. off. of. the. internet. Not complicated.[/quote]

Excellent post!

You don’t post as much as you used to, but your ability to express the most important stuff is always improving!

135

I love this

136

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
It includes full body workouts to start off a beginner, which I think is the only thing correct about starting strength for a beginner.[/quote]

I 100% agree with beginner full body programs. The problem is starting strength is essentially a football strength program. Not a bodybuilding one. Why use it to reach a goal it doesn’t try to achieve? Sure, go ahead if you just want to look athletic while training for a shorted amount of time each month but as a said before that isn’t bodybuilding

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Wouldn’t Steve Reeves’ program be full-body, 3 times per week?..

…So, OP, get strong on the right lifts for the right reps first and you will find yourself getting bigger at the same time. I like full body as a means to those ends, others don’t. Pick what suits you best and get. off. of. the. internet. Not complicated.[/quote]

Overall well said. I think we forget that the people asking these questions are probably in analysis paralysis.

Yes he does full body workouts but whats important for the beginner is he gives his thoughts on how to be a bodybuilder which means, first and foremost, creating a cosmetic illusion with where you put on the size and where you do not. It really does make a difference in the long run and most bodybuilding enthusiasts never even realize this until its to late. The ones who stick with it and become noteworthy only later develop a sense of appreciation for proportion after years of training. At this point, barring a great sergio olivia like frame, one has already have fucked up there proportions so bad that they could have gained less in better places with regards to one’s frames. If your not thinking about shape with size from the gate you doomed to develop what will amount to a so-so physique once you reach the upper levels of your development. Steve reeves book gives a comprehensive plan that etches that into the mind.

YES YES we here it all the time from beginners, you want to be big, not look big. Well get as big a possible with the proviso that the added mass enhances your natural lines and achieves a look that is out of this world. It’s possible without drugs and you can turns head for the right reasons.

137

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
I would grab Steve Reeves book “building the classic physique the natural way”. Reading it gives one a base of knowledge that you can use to guide ones thoughts on the way a correct bodybuilding plan is structured. Once your done with his basic cookie cutter routines you can branch out with a proper guide in your head. It includes full body workouts to start off a beginner, which I think is the only thing correct about starting strength for a beginner.

You could also try Frank Zane’s “high def body” or Vince Gironda’s “unleashing the wild physique” to start out. All three of these, while considered somewhat dated, set out a comprehensive plan that is years ahead of most of the crap begginers latch on to.[/quote]

Wouldn’t Steve Reeves’ program be full-body, 3 times per week?

What I know is that I have a client on this board who is a powerlifter and minimally concerned with bodybuilding who has absolutely exploded over the last 18 months training full body 3-4 times per week. I’m sure the 530 lb squats and 650 lb deadlifts didn’t have anything to do with that though. I would be interested to see what he would look like in 12 months if we were to take his reps above 5’s, as he worked mainly in the 3-5 range for that time period.

I think the idea that so-and-so got really jacked never going over 225 on anything is great when you get into the realms of IFBB pro-level steroid, insulin, and peptide usage. It’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that you can just make a 1:1 transfer from the concepts that work for walking pharmacies to those who aren’t quite so enhanced. I know there are a lot of people on this board who don’t think that many people use and don’t think pros use as much as they do, but they’re lying to themselves. 90% of people placing in local shows are using, 99.9% of people placing in national level shows are using, and 90% of them are using in exorbitant amounts, and 100% of IFBB pros are using, 99.9% of them in exorbitant quantities.

The biggest natural trainees I know are all strong as fuark and all focused on getting strong as a means to get bigger. Several years ago, I would have laughed at such notions, as I knew everything. Now that I’ve begun to dig into these concepts and opened myself up to paradigms that I originally thought ridiculous (ie: anything other than body part splits), my opinions have changed as they are based on doing instead of reading about others doing.

So, OP, get strong on the right lifts for the right reps first and you will find yourself getting bigger at the same time. I like full body as a means to those ends, others don’t. Pick what suits you best and get. off. of. the. internet. Not complicated.[/quote]

holly shit good post.

138

OP – I’m curious, when you say fitness model, do you want to look like the guy in your avi? Or something a little bit leaner like your average soap opera star (or maybe Brad Pitt in Fight Club as another example)?

In regards to the above goal (and I really want to hear the opinions of experienced trainers here), wouldn’t there be some merit in building a foundation based on a lot of high-intensity bodyweight work?

Specifically, dips, chins/pull-ups, rope climbing, rock climbing, ring work…hell, even TRX/suspension trainer work.

In other words, foundational male gymnast training.

One could take it in two directions – either start with a small number of core lifts and make all accessory work bodyweight work (like one of Wendler’s 5/3/1 variations), OR make all the primary work be bodyweight work and use weights to fine-tune lagging body parts.

Fat burning could be along the lines of ‘Warrior Cardio’ type training.

I’m just considering this because such training might lend itself towards that elongated-looking torso, ultra-defined abs, and wide but not thick lat and shoulder look that’s been popular in the male fitness model world for the past decade or two.

Thoughts?

139

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
If your not thinking about shape with size from the gate you doomed to develop what will amount to a so-so physique once you reach the upper levels of your development. Steve reeves book gives a comprehensive plan that etches that into the mind.

[/quote]

By far the single most retarded criticism of Starting Strength, and it is spewed over and over. You expect someone to believe that 4 months (which IMO is the maximum SS should be ran…it is NOT a program for the long haul as some construct their strawmen to make it out to be) of not hammering the “bent over deltoid flybacks with a rest pause technique 1-0-4-2 tempo cluster sets” will really result in a “so-so physique” YEARS down the line? Really? REALLLY!!!

Hot damn–its a wonder anyone that isn’t focused on their deltoid caps and ham/quad symmetry coming out of the womb has any sort of shot whatsoever at having an ‘aesthetically pleasing physique’…better make sure they focus on that before, you know, learning to crawl or talk.

Lending stock in that asinine notion is the most ridiculous thing I could possibly think of.

What is so controversial about someone saying to build up your primary muscle groups first, then focus on the details (if you choose to do so)?

140

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
If your not thinking about shape with size from the gate you doomed to develop what will amount to a so-so physique once you reach the upper levels of your development. Steve reeves book gives a comprehensive plan that etches that into the mind.

[/quote]

By far the single most retarded criticism of Starting Strength, and it is spewed over and over. You expect someone to believe that 4 months (which IMO is the maximum SS should be ran…it is NOT a program for the long haul as some construct their strawmen to make it out to be) of not hammering the “bent over deltoid flybacks with a rest pause technique 1-0-4-2 tempo cluster sets” will really result in a “so-so physique” YEARS down the line? Really? REALLLY!!!

Hot damn–its a wonder anyone that isn’t focused on their deltoid caps and ham/quad symmetry coming out of the womb has any sort of shot whatsoever at having an ‘aesthetically pleasing physique’…better make sure they focus on that before, you know, learning to crawl or talk.

Lending stock in that asinine notion is the most ridiculous thing I could possibly think of.

What is so controversial about someone saying to build up your primary muscle groups first, then focus on the details (if you choose to do so)? [/quote]
bro wtf
clearly the people on this site who are bodybuilding purely are building great physiques in a 4 month span and never gained fat doing so