This Answers Everything

Training
81

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
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. [/quote]
I think it’s interesting you see it that way. I just read it categorically, as people who are skinny, and Thai, and fighters and/or people who are both skinny, and Muay Thai fighters.

I don’t read it as implying that all Thai fighters are skinny, just the ones he referred to.

I mean, I suppose there may be something offensive in assuming that someone skinny is weak, but that doesn’t seem to be what you’re taking offense to.

Also,

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
And please, I do not state this to impress, only to impress upon anyone[/quote]
That’s some impressive wordsmithing; I like it.

82

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[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. [/quote]

I think this is my cue to retire from this thread. Where I stated that kicking power is the be-all-end-all of fighting, I don’t know. I’m pretty sure I said multiple times that sport-specific skill is the primary factor in any sport.

In any case, you seem determined to miss the point, which I consider a small obvious one about stronger being better, all other factors equal, and which Rippetoe makes better than I can anyway in the podcast, if you watch the whole thing.

As far as me being racist, you are the one who said:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
And speaking of Thai fighters, most of them look frail and scrawny…
[/quote]

Which is the context in which I discussed Thai fighters at all.

83

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[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. [/quote]

I think this is my cue to retire from this thread. Where I stated that kicking power is the be-all-end-all of fighting, I don’t know. I’m pretty sure I said multiple times that sport-specific skill is the primary factor in any sport.

In any case, you seem determined to miss the point, which I consider a small obvious one about stronger being better, all other factors equal, and which Rippetoe makes better than I can anyway in the podcast, if you watch the whole thing.

As far as me being racist, you are the one who said:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
And speaking of Thai fighters, most of them look frail and scrawny…
[/quote]

Which is the context in which I discussed Thai fighters at all.
[/quote]

No more frail and scrawny as I am.

And if you just look back at your posts, it shows you are consistently correlating squat numbers with athletic performance. Wrestling, kicking, etc.

84

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
And please, I do not state this to impress, only to impress upon anyone[/quote]
That’s some impressive wordsmithing; I like it.[/quote]

Words are borrowed, just like anything else I might say that sounds cool. But thank you!

85

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[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:

[/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)
[/quote]

I think Lee Boyce is one of those guys who doesn’t get enough credit… Mainly because his articles are straight forward, simple, and effective.

So about that beginner thing… There’s a principle called the ‘beginners mind’, and I adopted it from Buddhism to really take myself to the next level.
I ‘left’ the beginner stage over a decade ago, but I revamped myself by returning to it once more. The idea is to never turn back on the freshness, eagerness of even the most mundane tasks or situations.
The importance of this, accentuates the importance of MMC. The squat or any movement is never mastered, only infinitely refined. So for anyone to claim that they’ve figured it out, shows me that they are too shallow in their understanding…

This, for anyone who grapples, is the precipice to the world that seperates ‘boy’ strength, and old man strength. The boy only knows but brute, while an old man knows better.

86

[quote]kollak95 wrote:
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.[/quote]

Yea, I posted it stumbling in from a long night out and just got real excited to see such a quality article… And it definitely can answer most of the issues brought up in the threads here.

*Before the freaks freakout, I do not condone this to anyone.

I bodyweight squat daily. On my own, showing my clients, with my clients, to stretch, etc.

With barbell: beyond MMC… focus on tempo/static holds. Focus on exploding weight up (making the weight feel like 200lbs). Pulses. Mindfully work through cue’s.

Long 15 - 20 minute warm up including squats, cleans, OH presses, jerks, good mornings

Working Sets
15 - 20? (Honestly never counted, but I’ll easily squat for over an hour) sets of 1 - 6 reps. Sometimes hit 20 with 95lbs for a nice pump. 185lbs sneaks in somewhere in the middle of workout, but soon dropped back down to 95lbs.

And I keep squatting until I feel good. I’ll be throwing pull ups in between the squats too, as well as push ups, so I am in constant motion. The only real break is sipping water. Rarely sore.

I want to say its very much like the cluster sets Thib shows in the vids.
I just took what was useful, rejected what was not, and added essentially what was uniquely my own. If you are interested, Thib speaks of the ‘force curve’, where you can excite the muscles simply by increasing the speed of the lift. This makes it possible to gain significant benefits even while using sub maximal weights. There’s a handful of other guys who has mentioned it, but Thib really is my main inspiration for adopting this.

87

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[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.[/quote]
I definitely agree he took a hard left turn with that example and I was thrown off. Bodyweight always needs to be a consideration when we’re dealing with relative strength athletes/weight class athletes.

So for sure there is such thing as “too much muscle” for some athletes, even if it’s built with little to no effect on conditioning or skills. Just like there is such thing as “too strong” for some athletes. A 180-pound grappler who push presses, say, 225x5 won’t benefit much by getting that up to 275x5. A 165-pound climber who can deadlift 500 won’t benefit much by working towards 600. Identifying those fine lines is tricky, but that’s part of a S&C coach’s job.

The key point I would’ve liked Rip to have really driven home is the emphasis on using strength training to improve overall performance by avoiding a basic strength deficiency. I liked his line, “The weaker you are, the more radically important [general strength improvement] is for you to do.” Makes sense.

If we have a 165-pound fighter who’s only strong enough to front squat 115x3, bringing his front squat up to something like 185x6 (and other lifts accordingly) will improve his overall performance in the ring/cage. A beginner lifter should be able to build that strength increase without adding a ton of size (which is what we’re after in this example, since we’re still talking weight class athletes).

EDIT: tweaked the above example to avoid overfocusing on “the squat”.

88

Probably the most confusing beginner thread ever.

89

[quote]roybot wrote:
Probably the most confusing beginner thread ever. [/quote]

It’s okay, Roy, I’ll go post a thread with the 8 keys of strength by Dave Tate titled “This REALLY Answers Everything”. It won’t go wrong at all, right guise? :wink: lol

90

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[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.[/quote]
I definitely agree he took a hard left turn with that example and I was thrown off. Bodyweight always needs to be a consideration when we’re dealing with relative strength athletes/weight class athletes.

So for sure there is such thing as “too much muscle” for some athletes, even if it’s built with little to no effect on conditioning or skills. Just like there is such thing as “too strong” for some athletes. A 180-pound grappler who push presses, say, 225x5 won’t benefit much by getting that up to 275x5. A 165-pound climber who can deadlift 500 won’t benefit much by working towards 600. Identifying those fine lines is tricky, but that’s part of a S&C coach’s job.

The key point I would’ve liked Rip to have really driven home is the emphasis on using strength training to improve overall performance by avoiding a basic strength deficiency. I liked his line, “The weaker you are, the more radically important [general strength improvement] is for you to do.” Makes sense.

If we have a 165-pound fighter who’s only strong enough to front squat 115x3, bringing his front squat up to something like 185x6 (and other lifts accordingly) will improve his overall performance in the ring/cage. A beginner lifter should be able to build that strength increase without adding a ton of size (which is what we’re after in this example, since we’re still talking weight class athletes).

EDIT: tweaked the above example to avoid overfocusing on “the squat”.[/quote]
Well Said Colucci! Well Said!

91

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
The key point I would’ve liked Rip to have really driven home is the emphasis on using strength training to improve overall performance by avoiding a basic strength deficiency. I liked his line, “The weaker you are, the more radically important [general strength improvement] is for you to do.” Makes sense.

If we have a 165-pound fighter who’s only strong enough to front squat 115x3, bringing his front squat up to something like 185x6 (and other lifts accordingly) will improve his overall performance in the ring/cage. A beginner lifter should be able to build that strength increase without adding a ton of size (which is what we’re after in this example, since we’re still talking weight class athletes).
[/quote]

The problem I see with this is that a lot of people keep thinking strength on the level of actual powerlifters whenever pro-strength people say strength is important in all endeavors.

I don’t know why they do this. I find it really weird, actually.

92

[quote]magick wrote:

The problem I see with this is that a lot of people keep thinking strength on the level of actual powerlifters whenever pro-strength people say strength is important in all endeavors.

I don’t know why they do this. I find it really weird, actually.[/quote]

Most people think of big and beefy when they think of strong. Sort of a stereotype. Most stereotypes have a grain of truth in there.

They do not think of strength talk as being applicable to the weakling that sports a 95/60/140/150 BP/OHP/SQUAT/DL being able to double those numbers. Even though doubling his numbers would make a vast improvement across the board in all physical things he does every day. From getting up off the toilet to carrying groceries in from the car to walking a couple flights of stairs.

All of them markedly improved by increasing his strength. And only getting better the further he can push those increases. This understanding would show them why, as Rippetoe said that increases in strength are MORE important the weaker you are.

Obviously, at latter stages of your improvements there is a decrease in cost:benefit ratio.

This is why the idea that ONE article “answers everything” is absurd. These concepts, while having some simple underlying basics, can be not-so-simple in understanding. Increasing strength does not necessarily correlate to increasing size. But it’s not a zero-sum game. As different amounts of weight, reps, schemes will lean more towards benefiting myofibril improvements, others will lean towards sarcoplasmic improvements, and many others fall at various points in the median.

Most beginners shouldn’t worry about any of that. Most beginners simply need to be stronger, period. The “base of strength” is quite useful, simple to enact, and also valuable as a learning instrument. After this period, they can then choose a path with perhaps more specific goals in mind (pure strength, pure size, some combination thereof) dependent upon their desired path (powerlifter? general strength? sport-specific athlete? aesthetics? bodybuilder? etc etc).

Discussing the minutia and planning of specialized rep schemes, hypertrophy, “mind muscle connection” etc are mostly confusing to lifters that aren’t at at least an intermediate stage of lifting.

The guy with a sub-200 lb squat or sub-100 lb bench should not be worried about MMC or pyramids. Not when any simple program of 5 reps times 3-5 sets on the major compound lifts will get him to respectable strength standards in 6 months time. Then he can actually, if he so chooses, make those specialized schemes, MMC, accessory exercise and the others actually useful to his goals.

Hypertrophy isn’t all that impressive when you are sporting the strength of a guy that can BP 100 lbs. What? Instead of your 14" earthworms for arms you will have 16" garter snakes?

93

[quote]SevenDragons wrote:

Hypertrophy isn’t all that impressive when you are sporting the strength of a guy that can BP 100 lbs. What? Instead of your 14" earthworms for arms you will have 16" garter snakes?
[/quote]
I didn’t realize that when I took the above pic, I barely had earthworm arms. Hopefully one day I will reach the elusive garter snake level.

94

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]SevenDragons wrote:

Hypertrophy isn’t all that impressive when you are sporting the strength of a guy that can BP 100 lbs. What? Instead of your 14" earthworms for arms you will have 16" garter snakes?
[/quote]
I didn’t realize that when I took the above pic, I barely had earthworm arms. Hopefully one day I will reach the elusive garter snake level. [/quote]

Love that bicep/ brachialis seperation.

95

[quote]SevenDragons wrote:
Discussing the minutia and planning of specialized rep schemes, hypertrophy, “mind muscle connection” etc are mostly confusing to lifters that aren’t at at least an intermediate stage of lifting.

The guy with a sub-200 lb squat or sub-100 lb bench should not be worried about MMC or pyramids. Not when any simple program of 5 reps times 3-5 sets on the major compound lifts will get him to respectable strength standards in 6 months time. Then he can actually, if he so chooses, make those specialized schemes, MMC, accessory exercise and the others actually useful to his goals.[/quote]

How can MMC not be an integral part of a beginners program? Tucking the butt, bracing the belly, squeezing upper back (scapular retraction), pulling hips down, staying tight, maintaining neutral spine, etc are all MMC. You can simply call them proper cues for various lifts, but it can’t be taught and executed without specifically training yourself to ‘know’ and properly execute these movements.

Also, beginners will undoubtedly have imbalances. And waiting until they mindlessly lift to your standard to become an ‘intermediate’ would only exacerbate them.

And of course it is confusing. So is 2+2 the first time you have seen it in your life.
What I’m seeing is that you are relegating MMC as its own method of training. It isn’t. It’s an unavoidable principle one may or may not choose to be aware of.

What the fuck

96

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

How can MMC not be an integral part of a beginners program? Tucking the butt, bracing the belly, squeezing upper back (scapular retraction), pulling hips down, staying tight, maintaining neutral spine, etc are all MMC. You can simply call them proper cues for various lifts, but it can’t be taught and executed without specifically training yourself to ‘know’ and properly execute these movements.

Also, beginners will undoubtedly have imbalances. And waiting until they mindlessly lift to your standard to become an ‘intermediate’ would only exacerbate them. [/quote]

Beginners are weak. Across the board. Worrying about ‘imbalances’ when you are flat out weak is an odd choice. How about getting strong with the basic compound lifts? Because they work the entire body, they will bring all the muscles along as required. And then worrying about ‘imbalances’ when they might be actually in the way of progress to the advanced lifter?

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
And of course it is confusing. So is 2+2 the first time you have seen it in your life.
What I’m seeing is that you are relegating MMC as its own method of training. It isn’t. It’s an unavoidable principle one may or may not choose to be aware of.[/quote]

No, it’s part of training. And more advanced. Frankly, if you are a weakling your bigger concern should be getting stronger. That can happen even if you are doing it wrong. Plenty of guys lift heavy weight and do it with gawdawful form.

And the remark about 16" arms is to point out that nobody cares if you are hypertrophying your spindly little arms as a weakling. When you are STRONG, you can use heavier weight for hypertrophy work. And people can actually tell that you did.

This is why having a base of strength is useful for the rest of the non-powerlifting lifters out there. Those aiming for size and looks can make much more efficient gains towards it when they are already strong.

97

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
How can MMC not be an integral part of a beginners program? Tucking the butt, bracing the belly, squeezing upper back (scapular retraction), pulling hips down, staying tight, maintaining neutral spine, etc are all MMC. You can simply call them proper cues for various lifts, but it can’t be taught and executed without specifically training yourself to ‘know’ and properly execute these movements.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but this isn’t a proper argument. I think anyone here will agree that form is important, but what you’re doing here is throwing good form in the same box as TUT, squeezing the muscle etc. and saying it’s all or nothing. Yeah, proper form is important; but this is a grey area. If worrying about form means that after six months you’re still doing very strict lunges with the pink dumbbells, you’re doing something wrong. I’ve seen this too often - and always seen it lead to a lack of results - that I can accept it as ‘a different way to train’.

Again, this whole damn topic is a gray area. Would I prefer a beginner to do a deep, controlled squat with 150 rather than a wobbly quarter squat with 250? Yes. Would I rather see him squat 100 for a set o8 with a sloow negative, three second pause at the bottom and no rest at the top than do a decent set of 5 with 220 where the last rep is a bit slower and he takes a deep breath at the top, thus destroying the whole TUT thing? Absolutely. Of course, we can all keep constructing examples that stack the facts in our beliefs’ favour - or we could agree on just that, it being a grey area.

98

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
How can MMC not be an integral part of a beginners program? Tucking the butt, bracing the belly, squeezing upper back (scapular retraction), pulling hips down, staying tight, maintaining neutral spine, etc are all MMC. You can simply call them proper cues for various lifts, but it can’t be taught and executed without specifically training yourself to ‘know’ and properly execute these movements.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but this isn’t a proper argument. I think anyone here will agree that form is important, but what you’re doing here is throwing good form in the same box as TUT, squeezing the muscle etc. and saying it’s all or nothing. Yeah, proper form is important; but this is a grey area. If worrying about form means that after six months you’re still doing very strict lunges with the pink dumbbells, you’re doing something wrong. I’ve seen this too often - and always seen it lead to a lack of results - that I can accept it as ‘a different way to train’.

Would I prefer a beginner to do a deep, controlled squat with 150 rather than a wobbly quarter squat with 250? Yes. Would I rather see him squat 100 for a set of 8 with a sloow negative, three second pause at the bottom and no rest at the top than do a decent set of 5 with 220 where the last rep is a bit slower and he takes a deep breath at the top, thus destroying the whole TUT thing? Absolutely. Of course, we can all keep constructing examples that stack the facts in our beliefs’ favour - or we could agree on just that, it being a grey area.
[/quote]

99

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
How can MMC not be an integral part of a beginners program? Tucking the butt, bracing the belly, squeezing upper back (scapular retraction), pulling hips down, staying tight, maintaining neutral spine, etc are all MMC. You can simply call them proper cues for various lifts, but it can’t be taught and executed without specifically training yourself to ‘know’ and properly execute these movements.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but this isn’t a proper argument. I think anyone here will agree that form is important, but what you’re doing here is throwing good form in the same box as TUT, squeezing the muscle etc. and saying it’s all or nothing. Yeah, proper form is important; but this is a grey area. If worrying about form means that after six months you’re still doing very strict lunges with the pink dumbbells, you’re doing something wrong. I’ve seen this too often - and always seen it lead to a lack of results - that I can accept it as ‘a different way to train’.

Again, this whole damn topic is a gray area. Would I prefer a beginner to do a deep, controlled squat with 150 rather than a wobbly quarter squat with 250? Yes. Would I rather see him squat 100 for a set o8 with a sloow negative, three second pause at the bottom and no rest at the top than do a decent set of 5 with 220 where the last rep is a bit slower and he takes a deep breath at the top, thus destroying the whole TUT thing? Absolutely. Of course, we can all keep constructing examples that stack the facts in our beliefs’ favour - or we could agree on just that, it being a grey area.
[/quote]

Actually, I see his point more in reference to muscular activation, and it is quite valid.

100

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Actually, I see his point more in reference to muscular activation, and it is quite valid.[/quote]

So do I. I hope that’s obvious. So do most reasonable people on here. But tying this to the techniques mentioned in the Boyce article and saying “if you agree to THIS, you also have to agree to THAT” is sloppy debating IMO. I’ll be honest, I’m much more upset about the sloppiness than I am about his opinion at this point.