This Answers Everything

[dt79]

If you’re going to get semantic, I’ll respond in kind.

I was merely pointing out that I had written the same thing before you decided to engage in this debate.

[quote]dt79 wrote:
any form of weight progression that challenges and forces the body to adapt and get stronger will induce hypertrophy, regardless of the load used.

You say this is EXACTLY the same as:

dt79 wrote:
the part about needing a “strength base” is false. What is really needed is progression , and in the case of a beginner, quantifiable progression while he gains experience, hence the focus on numbers. Strength will come with muscle growth.

Maybe I’m going crazy, but they don’t look exactly the same to me at all.

In the latter statement, you take issue with the idea of a strength base, and state that “strength will come with muscle growth.” [/quote]

Let me try to break it down as simply as I can:

I bench 135lbs today. My eyes nearly pop out of their sockets from the strain. My body, sensing danger during the last few reps, activates more muscle fibers as the initial ones fatigue, which eventually also fatigue resulting in muscular failure. Thus, I have placed a growth stimulus on my body and when I go home and consume excess calories, my muscles grow.

The next week I am able to bench 145lbs for the same amount of reps because of this growth (and yes, neural adaptation etc), and taking this 145lbs to failure, in turn, causes a further growth stimulus.

Therefore, strength will come with muscle growth(and, yes, for the upteenth time neural adaptation, technical improvement, minute changes in leverages due to weight gain etc etc are factors too).

Does this make sense?

I don’t think this is true. I know it’s possible to get stronger without muscle growth, so muscle growth is not necessary for strength increasing.

I don’t dispute this. Better hope bull_scientist doesn’t read this lol.

That muscle growth alone is sufficient for strength increasing, or that it occurs before and allows for strength increasing, is your assertion, and I’m inclined to disagree, but even if it CAN occur, the point at issue here is about training methodology – how to approach training, specifically for people without a good “strength base.”

Nope I have asserted none of this. The statement I made was in context of the article, where it was written that a trainee needs a “strength base”, which implies every beginner must use a full body pure strength training program or similar, before training for hypertrophy.

I find this absurd because if I, on the other extreme (not saying I would do it), start a beginner on a bro split, and he adds 10lbs to his main lifts every month, he is essentially achieving this “strength base” while getting the benefits of a program with more variety of exercises and more condusive to hypertrophy.

Now you may argue about pure strength/ full body programs potentially providing better results but from the posts here by beginners claiming they’re stalling before squatting 185lbs when they’ve just really not been eating enough to GAIN BODYWEIGHT, which implies the necessity of muscle growth, it doesn’t really seem to be true does it?

However, please do not misunderstand that I am against full body training. I believe it will pack on the muscle just fine. What I’m pointing out is the adherence to common dogma causing these flaws in logic.

The idea of a “strength base” has never been that a trainee can’t gain any muscle at all until reaching a certain threshold of strength. The idea is that focusing on strength (i.e., on rep ranges typically used to cultivate strength), will drive an optimal balance of neural and muscular adaptation in most beginner and intermediate trainees.

This is what I agree with.

But you wrote this:

For these people, neural adaptation has to occur before hypertrophy. Which is why a lot of beginners don’t see any gains in the first couple months, and then start growing.

I’ll not playing with semantics here. You could expand on your previous statements though.

More advanced hypertrophy-specific techniques should wait until this “strength base” has been developed, because – while they may work to some degree – they remain LESS EFFECTIVE than basic strength-focused lifting, until diminishing returns begin to set in. (i.e., it becomes incrementally harder to add weight to the bar, and doing so no longer promotes hypertrophy at an optimal rate). That is the idea of a “strength base”; it’s not something I made up.

But I’m not disputing this other than the concept of a “strength base” BEFORE training for hypertrophy.

If I pyramid all my compound exercises up to a heavy set of 4-6 reps and try to go heavier every session, work up to 8-10 reps on secondary exercises, and finally doing some pump stuff with assorted isolations, how am I not training for strength as well? This is how bodybuilders I used to train with did it.

It’s all these new fancy “pure hypertrophy” programs that are confusing people, which is also why I wrote about the importance of QUANTIFIABLE PROGRESSION - chasing numbers when training to gain size in the first place.

The fat gain issue is really missing the point. I do believe a fully untrained person new to weightlifting wouldn’t necessarily need a caloric surplus for the first couple weeks, depending on starting strength, as nearly all the adaptation will be neural. But they would still need to increase calories to account for the additional exercise, and it obviously wouldn’t hurt to go into a surplus, as fat gain over just a couple weeks is not a significant factor, and hypertrophy may occur. In any case, it’s moot, because you don’t know exactly how much hypertrophy is going to occur or when. When I started lifting, hypertrophy probably started immediately, as I had an okay strength base just from doing push-ups and situps. My point was that hypertrophy doesn’t necessarily start immediately for untrained beginners, as the loads have to be heavy enough to damage the muscle fibers.

But you wrote MONTHS.

We will have to agree to disagree because I realise this is going nowhere but heed my warning, the Cult of Rippetoe will be on your ass sooner that you can say GOMAD.

[quote]Well, he benched 65x3x5 his first day in the gym. He’s now gone up to 100x3x5 over ~2 months, and has not noticed and upper body muscle gain.

My explanation is that the load has been enough to drive neural gains but not muscular adaptation. What’s your explanation? [/quote]

There are multiple reasons why a trainee won’t grow including lack of food intake, improper diet, lack of effort, genetics, improper recovery, hormones, response to training variables such as rep ranges, frequency, limb length vs tension on target muscles etc.

Why not ask why someone like Eric Cressey who deadlifts 600lbs doesn’t look like he lifts? Or the typical tall and skinny guys we all see in the gym deadlifting 400lbs?

How about the untrained but naturally muscular guys that are much weaker but have more muscle mass than a skinny fat beginner who has been sparing no effort in his training for over a year?

I have my own examples of real life scrawny, weak and untrained kids blowing up in the first few months of training but I’m too tired to go into them, so I’ll just leave it be.

Have a Merry Christmas.

[dt79]

[quote]dagill2 wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]dagill2 wrote:
So, to summarise:

People train in different ways for different goals.

I think that might be the end of this thread.[/quote]

Just flew over your head.

Hopefully you’ll get a grasp of it when you gain more experience. Until then, don’t be so dismissive and judgmental. You won’t learn anything that way.

Good luck.[/quote]

I think you misinterpreted my post. I’m not judging how you train at all. My point is that your way of training is effective for your goals, and Reeds is effective for his. Comparing the two seems to me to be irrelevant when you have totally different goals.

I also don’t like the attitude that so often comes out in these threads that “my way is right and your way will give you dick cancer”. We all know there’s plenty of ways to skin a cat, and we might all learn something useful if we start listening and stop trying to kneecap everyone who trains differently from us.

I find your way of training interesting, I’m not going to adopt it wholesale but I do think there’s things I can learn from it.
[/quote]

One thing I wholeheartedly agree with is:

Don’t fuck with tiny Thai fighters. Once the Thai Fighting God figurine comes out of their pockets and they start praying while warming up, it’s time to run lol.

[craze9]

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
…[/quote]

This is all interesting, and I don’t really disagree with any of it. Certainly the exact numbers you lift don’t really matter unless you’re training for a sport that involves lifting specific numbers (powerlifting, Olympic lifting). The bodyweight multipliers, or 300/400/500 are just abstract benchmarks, and if you weight 150 lbs or are training for a sport in which strength is not particularly important, that should be taken into consideration.

I would point out that when it comes to the striking martial arts, strength isn’t actually one of the more important athletic factors, at all. Technique trumps pretty much everything, with speed and reach and other elements far more important than strength. If I can hit you but you can’t hit me, it doesn’t matter how strong you are – a weak person punching you in the face (or kicking you in the knee) still hurts. I’ve seen guys who bench press less than me smash through hundreds of pounds of ice with their bare hands. It’s all technique.

When you add grappling to the equation, though, strength becomes more important (though technique / skill in the sport is still the primary factor).

In any case, the Thai fighter stuff is all true, and obviously a guy who benches 500 and squats 600 isn’t going to win a fight with a skinny Thai guy who is a better fighter. And heavy squatting isn’t necessary to being a good fighter.

But I would argue that if a skinny Thai guy were to add 100-200 pounds to his squat and deadlift, he would be able to kick harder. Maybe it doesn’t fit his training regimen, maybe he already kicks hard enough, but I do think a significant increase in strength like that would carry-over to his kicking power. I don’t have proof, but it seems pretty clear to me. And if he could do that – get stronger – without sacrificing other elements of his training, I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to, as a professional athlete.

[craze9]

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Let me try to break it down as simply as I can:

I bench 135lbs today. My eyes nearly pop out of their sockets from the strain. My body, sensing danger during the last few reps, activates more muscle fibers as the initial ones fatigue, which eventually also fatigue resulting in muscular failure. Thus, I have placed a growth stimulus on my body and when I go home and consume excess calories, my muscles grow.

The next week I am able to bench 145lbs for the same amount of reps because of this growth (and yes, neural adaptation etc), and taking this 145lbs to failure, in turn, causes a further growth stimulus.

Therefore, strength will come with muscle growth(and, yes, for the upteenth time neural adaptation, technical improvement, minute changes in leverages due to weight gain etc etc are factors too).

Does this make sense?
[/quote]

You really think a typical trainee is going to gain enough muscle IN ONE WEEK to significantly increase his ability to move the bar?

It seems unlikely, to me. I’d argue it’s the other factors – neural adaptation and technical improvement above all – that account for 90+% of that increase. The example above also doesn’t include rep or set ranges, which I think is important to the discussion (because this is what determines “training for strength” vs “training for hypertrophy”).

I agree that over time, an increase in the cross-sectional area of a muscle will allow for more strength, but that is a slow adaptation. I really don’t think it’s hypertrophy that accounts for beginner or intermediate lifters being able to quickly add weight to the bar.

There may be lifters who DON’T focus on strength when they start, and lift only in the 8-15 rep range, but still manage to get stronger and progress over the long run. I think they’re the exception, though, and that is why some of the most popular beginner programs out there advocate using 5’s – a number of reps that balances strength and hypertrophy potential.

I’m not going to respond point by point to the rest of your post because I don’t disagree with most of it, and because it isn’t really getting us anywhere. I don’t even disagree that you could start a new lifter on a bro split and he would make fine progress… for a while. Maybe for a long time. An untrained lifter could do almost anything in the gym and improve, because they are untrained and don’t require much stimulus to adapt.

The main points of disagreement seem to be:

1. You understanding a “strength base” to mean that one cannot train for hypertrophy at all until meeting certain strength standards. I don’t think this is actually how people mean to use the term. In any case, I agree that you can train for hypertrophy at any point, and may get good results depending on genetics and other factors. I tend to think it is not the most effective training approach for lifters who are still relatively weak in the big lifts, but there are lots of factors to consider.

2. Me saying some untrained beginners don’t see muscular gains during the first couple months of training, because neural adaptation has to occur first.

I think the example of my friend illustrates what I was getting at. Someone who has never bench pressed before, and has very little upper body strength, is going to need to take some time to get better at the bench press, before he is strong enough to lift enough weight to create a sufficient stimulus for growth. My friend’s experience bears this out. His first bench press session, lifting 65x3x5, is not necessarily going to build muscle, no matter how much he eats. Two months later, lifting 100x3x5, the same problem might still occur. Or it might not. If he were to lift 80x5x10 instead, it might create a bigger growth stimulus, but there are other potential consequences of this protocol (e.g. compromised recovery, less neural adaptation) that might make it un-adviseable.

Basically, focusing on hypertrophy when still WEAK can make quantifiable progression more difficult. And since we both agree that quantifiable progression is what matters, it seems like not the best approach, to me.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

[craze9]

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:
Well, he benched 65x3x5 his first day in the gym. He’s now gone up to 100x3x5 over ~2 months, and has not noticed and upper body muscle gain.

My explanation is that the load has been enough to drive neural gains but not significant muscular adaptation. What’s your explanation?[/quote]
I would basically agree with that. I’m not sure the load is enough to drive much neural gains yet though, beyond basic coordination, balance and firing patterns. When I say neural gains, I’m talking about the ability to recruit more motor units, which may not be quite what you mean.

I think he’s probably just too new to the lift to get much for gains of any sort, and it’s not until he starts nearing his true 5RM territory that he’s going to see gains of either sort. That’s not to say that the slow and steady process he’s going through doesn’t have any value; I mean, you have to learn how to bench press before you can get better at bench pressing.

Once he does start getting to a point where the weights are actually getting heavy, I’d expect he’s at a point where hypertrophy will start to happen, and food will be necessary. He can certainly continue to get stronger without additional food, to a point, but getting bigger will require food.

That’s my take at least.
[/quote]

Yeah, that’s exactly how I see it.

[dt79]

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Let me try to break it down as simply as I can:

I bench 135lbs today. My eyes nearly pop out of their sockets from the strain. My body, sensing danger during the last few reps, activates more muscle fibers as the initial ones fatigue, which eventually also fatigue resulting in muscular failure. Thus, I have placed a growth stimulus on my body and when I go home and consume excess calories, my muscles grow.

The next week I am able to bench 145lbs for the same amount of reps because of this growth (and yes, neural adaptation etc), and taking this 145lbs to failure, in turn, causes a further growth stimulus.

Therefore, strength will come with muscle growth(and, yes, for the upteenth time neural adaptation, technical improvement, minute changes in leverages due to weight gain etc etc are factors too).

Does this make sense?
[/quote]

You really think a typical trainee is going to gain enough muscle IN ONE WEEK to significantly increase his ability to move the bar?

It seems unlikely, to me. I’d argue it’s the other factors – neural adaptation and technical improvement above all – that account for 90+% of that increase. The example above also doesn’t include rep or set ranges, which I think is important to the discussion (because this is what determines “training for strength” vs “training for hypertrophy”).

I agree that over time, an increase in the cross-sectional area of a muscle will allow for more strength, but that is a slow adaptation. I really don’t think it’s hypertrophy that accounts for beginner or intermediate lifters being able to quickly add weight to the bar.

There may be lifters who DON’T focus on strength when they start, and lift only in the 8-15 rep range, but still manage to get stronger and progress over the long run. I think they’re the exception, though, and that is why some of the most popular beginner programs out there advocate using 5’s – a number of reps that balances strength and hypertrophy potential.

I’m not going to respond point by point to the rest of your post because I don’t disagree with most of it, and because it isn’t really getting us anywhere. I don’t even disagree that you could start a new lifter on a bro split and he would make fine progress… for a while. Maybe for a long time. An untrained lifter could do almost anything in the gym and improve, because they are untrained and don’t require much stimulus to adapt.

The main points of disagreement seem to be:

1. You understanding a “strength base” to mean that one cannot train for hypertrophy at all until meeting certain strength standards. I don’t think this is actually how people mean to use the term. In any case, I agree that you can train for hypertrophy at any point, and may get good results depending on genetics and other factors. I tend to think it is not the most effective training approach for lifters who are still relatively weak in the big lifts, but there are lots of factors to consider.

2. Me saying some untrained beginners don’t see muscular gains during the first couple months of training, because neural adaptation has to occur first.

I think the example of my friend illustrates what I was getting at. Someone who has never bench pressed before, and has very little upper body strength, is going to need to take some time to get better at the bench press, before he is strong enough to lift enough weight to create a sufficient stimulus for growth. My friend’s experience bears this out. His first bench press session, lifting 65x3x5, is not necessarily going to build muscle, no matter how much he eats. Two months later, lifting 100x3x5, the same problem might still occur. Or it might not. If he were to lift 80x5x10 instead, it might create a bigger growth stimulus, but there are other potential consequences of this protocol (e.g. compromised recovery, less neural adaptation) that might make it un-adviseable.

Basically, focusing on hypertrophy when still WEAK can make quantifiable progression more difficult. And since we both agree that quantifiable progression is what matters, it seems like not the best approach, to me.

Merry Christmas to you as well. [/quote]

Well, at least we all agree on not fucking with tiny Thai fighters lol.

[Jarvan]

[quote]craze9 wrote:

But I would argue that if a skinny Thai guy were to add 100-200 pounds to his squat and deadlift, he would be able to kick harder. Maybe it doesn’t fit his training regimen, maybe he already kicks hard enough, but I do think a significant increase in strength like that would carry-over to his kicking power. I don’t have proof, but it seems pretty clear to me. And if he could do that – get stronger – without sacrificing other elements of his training, I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to, as a professional athlete.
[/quote]

And that is pure conjecture. And I assume you have never actually kicked a solid object as hard as you can before.

[Chris_Colucci]

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:
But I would argue that if a skinny Thai guy were to add 100-200 pounds to his squat and deadlift, he would be able to kick harder. Maybe it doesn’t fit his training regimen, maybe he already kicks hard enough, but I do think a significant increase in strength like that would carry-over to his kicking power. I don’t have proof, but it seems pretty clear to me. And if he could do that – get stronger – without sacrificing other elements of his training, I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to, as a professional athlete. [/quote]
And that is pure conjecture.[/quote]
This topic is a bigass can of worms, but Rippetoe just did a podcast yesterday discussing the importance of improving basic strength in endurance sports. Very relevant, from around 9:00 -13:30ish:

#55 The Basic Formula of Arippmetic. (Guest Mark Rippetoe)

[Jarvan]

[quote]dagill2 wrote:
I also don’t like the attitude that so often comes out in these threads that “my way is right and your way will give you dick cancer”. We all know there’s plenty of ways to skin a cat, and we might all learn something useful if we start listening and stop trying to kneecap everyone who trains differently from us.
[/quote]

Which is why this thread flew over your head.

This thread was never about a KING template/method/tempo/etc. It was never about one way to train. It’s just that certain people started to call me out on my 95lbs squat weight… and the original topic/discussion was lost.

Certain people wanted to immediately dismiss the fact that adding weight wasn’t the only way to hypertrophy… I was sad that some people didn’t even read Lee Boyce’s article before responding. The defenses were up, bridges drawn, and ego’s raging.

[T3hPwnisher]

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:

But I would argue that if a skinny Thai guy were to add 100-200 pounds to his squat and deadlift, he would be able to kick harder. Maybe it doesn’t fit his training regimen, maybe he already kicks hard enough, but I do think a significant increase in strength like that would carry-over to his kicking power. I don’t have proof, but it seems pretty clear to me. And if he could do that – get stronger – without sacrificing other elements of his training, I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to, as a professional athlete.
[/quote]

And that is pure conjecture. And I assume you have never actually kicked a solid object as hard as you can before.
[/quote]

Jarvan, I have to ask, do you not see the irony of you taking issue with conjecture here while you posted a thread on the topic on hypertrophy when you by your own admission have not built much?

[craze9]

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:
But I would argue that if a skinny Thai guy were to add 100-200 pounds to his squat and deadlift, he would be able to kick harder. Maybe it doesn’t fit his training regimen, maybe he already kicks hard enough, but I do think a significant increase in strength like that would carry-over to his kicking power. I don’t have proof, but it seems pretty clear to me. And if he could do that – get stronger – without sacrificing other elements of his training, I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to, as a professional athlete. [/quote]
And that is pure conjecture.[/quote]
This topic is a bigass can of worms, but Rippetoe just did a podcast yesterday discussing the importance of improving basic strength in endurance sports. Very relevant, from around 9:00 -13:30ish:

#55 The Basic Formula of Arippmetic. (Guest Mark Rippetoe)

[/quote]

Thanks for the video, hadn’t seen it. It’s very pertinent, because my statement above is basically Rippetoe’s position. I recall seeing a thread on his forum a while ago where he commented on the sad state of strength and conditioning coaches in MMA, and how his only task as a strength coach would be to get the fighters’ absolute strength up to decent levels while minimizing interference with the rest of their training.

@Jarvan:

Is it just pure conjecture to say a skinny Thai fighter who doesn’t squat and whose absolute strength is low would apply more force with a kick when he’s twice as strong? Maybe. It seems kind of obvious to me.

Not sure why you assume I’ve never kicked anything.

[Jarvan]

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:

But I would argue that if a skinny Thai guy were to add 100-200 pounds to his squat and deadlift, he would be able to kick harder. Maybe it doesn’t fit his training regimen, maybe he already kicks hard enough, but I do think a significant increase in strength like that would carry-over to his kicking power. I don’t have proof, but it seems pretty clear to me. And if he could do that – get stronger – without sacrificing other elements of his training, I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to, as a professional athlete.
[/quote]

And that is pure conjecture. And I assume you have never actually kicked a solid object as hard as you can before.
[/quote]

Jarvan, I have to ask, do you not see the irony of you taking issue with conjecture here while you posted a thread on the topic on hypertrophy when you by your own admission have not built much?[/quote]

It is hard to take anything seriously from someone who doesn’t look like Jim Wendler or Amit Sapir regarding hypertrophy.

I believe you are basing your statement on the tangent of my particular routine, rather than the spotlight on the article which was the original intent. I never intended to defend my own personal workout until I was provoked. And I must repeat for the umpteenth time that I do not condone everyone do what I personally do. I am merely proposing that Lee Boyce’s article holds more weight than the simple, “eat more, lift more” dogma for hypertrophy. *which, for you semantic freaks, doesn’t mean that those things aren’t important either.

And I’d argue that even what I do can not be considered conjecture. And that is because I am able to maintain a 2x bodyweight squat while applying the principles Lee Boyce has presented… Using MMC, tempo control, cluster sets, and the works.
I also sustain a BW+115lbs pullups, simply by training bodyweight. And please, I do not state this to impress, only to impress upon anyone who wants to gain more from their workouts. If they choose to incorporate what we’ve discussed.

[Jarvan]

[quote]craze9 wrote:
@Jarvan:

Is it just pure conjecture to say a skinny Thai fighter who doesn’t squat and whose absolute strength is low would apply more force with a kick when he’s twice as strong? Maybe. It seems kind of obvious to me.

Not sure why you assume I’ve never kicked anything.[/quote]

Because kicking power is not the end all be all in combat sports, but you seem to be fixated on it. A bat breaking kick is not necessary. And even if you decided to apply that in a fight, your opponent will simply knee/shin check you and you will be Anderson Silva’d.

EDIT

And I know it isn’t intentional, but please do not refer to Thai fighters as “skinny Thai fighters”. I am not Thai but I feel it’s borderline racist.

[Apoklyps]

[quote]Reed wrote:
My 130 pound Girl Friend
[/quote]

I’ve been out of the loop for a few months, but things didn’t work out with the wife then? I’m so sorry man

It’s crazy how strong women are if they actually try. My GF squatted (high bar, ATG, as raw as it gets) 52.5kg for 5x5 at a BW of 50kg after just a few training sessions. Good form too. But then cheerleaders are actually crazy athletic and strong. Definitely gained some respect for what it takes to do cheer after dating her.

[T3hPwnisher]

I suppose the answer to my question was “no”.

Best of luck with the training Jarvan.

[kollak95]

While I basically agree with most of what’s been written, (yes, there are other ways to build strength or size than adding weight to the bar), by posting a thread in the Beginner thread and calling it “This Answers Everything,” it comes across rather odd and I think that’s what a lot of posters are concerned and taking issue with.

Also, I’m genuinely curious how one maintains a double body weight squat using 95 lbs., not that I’d want to use it, just curious what that protocol looks like.

[nighthawkz]

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
This topic is a bigass can of worms, but Rippetoe just did a podcast yesterday discussing the importance of improving basic strength in endurance sports. Very relevant, from around 9:00 -13:30ish:

#55 The Basic Formula of Arippmetic. (Guest Mark Rippetoe)

[/quote]

Just because it pissed me off so much - does Rippetoe seriously think adding 20lbs to a climber to make him squat heavier will improve his climbing? He should really have a conversation with Mark Twight about that.

RE: topic - I generally find Boyd too Bro-ey to take him seriously. Sorry. That being said, I think that once you’re past the beginner stage, you CAN apply most of it. Yes, getting more muscular requires getting stronger. However, if I go from doing ten pull ups as fast as possible to doing them with a two second squeeze at the top and a slow eccentric, I did get stronger, even though I didn’t add weight or reps.

The trap many newbs fall into is to add weight no matter what, compensating for it with reduced ROM and jerking and then wondering why they’re not growing. If you want to grow, you need to put tension on the muscle. If you want to throw heavy stuff around, train with shot putters.

RE: Jarvan - you are one foolish man. Don’t you realise that there is one way to achieve things, and only one? (obviously the one I’m using)

[Ecchastang]

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
Just because it pissed me off so much - does Rippetoe seriously think adding 20lbs to a climber to make him squat heavier will improve his climbing? He should really have a conversation with Mark Twight about that.
[/quote]
I can assure you that adding weight, even if mostly muscle weight, negatively affects climbing. I peaked in my climbing at a bodyweight of 142 in the spring of 2012. That is the lightest I have ever weighed as an adult. I weigh 162 now, and am much stronger all the way around, but my climbing is down a couple grades.

[nighthawkz]

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
Just because it pissed me off so much - does Rippetoe seriously think adding 20lbs to a climber to make him squat heavier will improve his climbing? He should really have a conversation with Mark Twight about that.
[/quote]
I can assure you that adding weight, even if mostly muscle weight, negatively affects climbing. I peaked in my climbing at a bodyweight of 142 in the spring of 2012. That is the lightest I have ever weighed as an adult. I weigh 162 now, and am much stronger all the way around, but my climbing is down a couple grades. [/quote]

Exactly. I’m not a climber myself (I climb a few times a year at best) but all my friends who are tell me that getting heavier, even if it’s pure muscle, makes it harder. Rippetoe is just trying to sell his “barbell training makes everyone better” dogma.

[kollak95]

“Mr. Rippetoe, I’m struggling in Calc II. Any suggestions?”
“Put twenty pounds on your squat. Next question.”

“Hey Mark, having trouble with my relationship…”
“Squat. Twenty more pounds. Next.”